Case Studies

Ameliorate A8ern8, Zaanstadt, The Netherlands

Background NL Architects, the town’s design consultant, conceptualized the 40- by 400-meter area The City Council of this small suburb 16 as a long “civic arcade”. The introduction kilometers (10 miles) north of Amsterdam of new programs, cladding of the elevated undertook in 2003 an initiative to create structure, and surface treatments transformed a new town square. The project sought to A8 from a barrier into a gathering place. In reactivate the space under A8, a 7-meter-tall addition, adjacent streetscape improvements elevated highway. re-established visual and physical connections among the town’s three public realms – the A8 enters town from the east, just after river, church, and town hall. spanning the River Zaan. When constructed in the 1970s, A8 formed a harsh physical barrier The project cost was €2.7 million. A8ernA was between the town’s two civic activity centers, awarded the European Prize for Urban Public the church and town hall. Residents of the Space in 2006. low-slung apartment blocks and townhouses in the surrounding neighborhood lost their Urban Design river views and access. The effort to redesign A8 was advocated for primarily by residents Stakeholder input established the key project and private businesses. At the time of the objective to create an open and simple Council’s initiative, A8’s underside was mostly meeting place and public face for the town. used for parking. This objective responded directly to A8’s

A8ern8 Highway Section – Before (1970s to 2000s); an Albert Heijn grocery store opened under the highway along with other neighborhood retail (above). 40 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY impact on the town fabric. A8 is a physical materials, including herringbone-patterned barrier between the north and south sides timber and reflective steel, into which back- of town and the River Zaan. Aesthetically, it lit lettering is dye-cut. Similarly, ground detracts from the surrounding architecture and treatments – from timber decking to orange natural landscape. Lastly, it diminishes use surface paint – differentiate program spaces. of public spaces next to the church and town hall. Process Program is key to achieving the project objective. A variety of uses were introduced The A8ernA project was coordinated with a into the site, appealing to a range of town larger, city-wide planning effort to identify resident needs and interests. For this reason, redevelopment sites for 10 new squares A8ernA attracts residents of all ages. in Zaanstadt. Alternatives for at-grade or tunnel replacement of A8 were not seriously The retail program includes an Albert Heijn considered due to high costs. supermarket, a pet shop, and flower shop as well as 120 parking spaces. Albert Heijn, in The Mayor and City Council, church officials, particular, was attracted to the site because merchants, and residents participated in the it offered a highway accessibility and a rare planning process. Stakeholder objectives opportunity for a large floor plate in town. and desires guided the design process. NL Architects incorporated nearly all community A skateboarding park, basketball courts, and program requests into the final design. ping pong tables provide youth with recreation amenities. A graffiti gallery serves as a public The businesses under A8 have been incredibly Cladding and lighting on the highway columns art component. A small marina with public successful. Albert Heijn has expressed interest makes the space more inviting; the skate-park seating was constructed where A8 lifts over in expanding and bringing in additional in-line generates amble activity. the Zaan, opening up river views. retail.

Material selection and surface treatment makes A8’s understory inviting and attractive. Structural columns were clad in a variety of

LESSONS OF A8ERN8 • A8ernA shows it is possible to live with an elevated structure. • A8ernA is a small scale project guided by a highly participatory This project adapts a visually repetitive space (concrete overhead, planning process. The process illustrates that a full range evenly space piers) with programmatic and visual diversity. The of stakeholder desires can be incorporated into project provision of a density of small programs and spaces with different implementation without diminishing design quality or resorting to characters makes an unappealing environment attractive. the “lowest common denominator”.

• The project was driven, in part, by private market interest in utilizing a unique retail site.

A8ern8 Highway Section – After (Existing)

SECTION V: CASE STUDIES 41 Case Studies

Ameliorate Viaduct des Arts, Paris, France

Background Whereas there were studios and workshops in the viaduct prior to renovation, the APUR The Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Plantee project represented significant up-scaling of is a 2-kilometer (1.25-mile) elevated railway both the viaduct and Avenue Daumesnil. structure in the 12th arrondissment of Paris. The viaduct runs parallel to Avenue Daumesnil Urban Design within a dense residential neighborhood of five- to six-story buildings. By the 1980s the viaduct was considered an The brick and masonry viaduct was urban eyesore. Its shops did not contribute constructed in the nineteenth century. The positively to neighborhood identity. In addition, railroad closed in 1969. From its closure to the city had recently invested in the grand the late-1990s, the viaduct’s large archways projet, Opera Bastille. As such, the Opera were episodically occupied by assortments of Bastille brought with it benefits for other area antique shops, auto garages, used bookstores, redevelopment and public amenities. The and other uses. viaduct’s eventual restoration was intended to enhance neighborhood retail, but also to Atelier Parisien d’ Urbanisme (APUR), the create a contemporary Paris landmark. city’s urban design agency, developed in the 1980s an historic restoration strategy for the The viaduct and promenade design viaduct. The plan proposed re-tenanting the emphasizes the structure’s character and 64 archways with artists, craftspeople, and visual connections to the city. The archway restaurants. In addition, it included a new restoration, designed by Patrick Berger, is linear park and gardens overhead, which intended to minimally distract from the were designed by Philippe Mathieu and structure’s historic character. Glass cladding Jacques Vergely. APUR partnered with a over the archways is set back in order to local development corporation to identify and accentuate the masonry, which was restored in manage new tenants.

Views of the city below are a key element of the Promenade design.

The archways under the viaduct provide space for artist studios, workshops, and restaurants.

42 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY the style of the Place des Vosges arcades. The Process Most importantly, the park alternative aligned promenade offers a range of gardens – some with APUR’s new agency focus on “greening of which enclose visitors in landscape, others The decision to retain and renovate the viaduct the city”. frame city views. was guided by both design considerations The Viaduct des Arts and Promenade and strategic coordination with other planning At street-level, a six-meter-wide (20-feet) tree- Plantee were advanced as two separate, but initiatives. APUR studied two alternatives lined sidewalk separates the viaduct from a interconnected projects. The Paris parks in the 1980s – demolish and redevelop three-lane one-way street. department manages the Promenade. A local reclaimed land, or restore and create an development corporation manages the archway The project also addresses railroad elevated linear park. spaces and adjacent developments under an embankment reuse, though less successfully. The park alternative was an opportunity to 18-year lease. At the viaduct’s eastern end, the promenade build upon the recently completed grand continues on an embankment. The restoration The dual-management structure is faulted project, the Opera Bastille, by adding another includes new retail constructed along the for the viaduct’s limited economic impact. new public amenity. At the same time, the embankment. The architecture here, however, Because two organizations manage the viaduct’s north side orients towards backs of is far less appealing than the restored viaduct. structure, a clear strategy has not be defined existing buildings. Demolishing the viaduct for coordinating viaduct activities with would create the difficult task of integrating neighborhood development and promoting it these revealed buildings, now visually throughout the city. prominent, into the streetscape.

LESSONS OF VIADUCT DES ARTS / PROMENADE PLANTEE • APUR advanced partnership with a local development corporation • The Viaduct des Arts demonstrates a potential benefit to retaining as a strategy for enhancing retail and residential development as existing infrastructure. Containing new uses in an historic well as strengthening the neighborhood’s identity. structure creates a sense of connections between the past and present. • The Promenade Plantee illustrates how potentially incompatible programs – when distributed on different levels – might co-exist • The Viaduct des Arts shows how existing infrastructure may be in the same place. The tranquil elevated linear park is separated successfully integrated into the public realm. from the bustle of the retail street below.

Some archways are left open to increase pedestrian connectivity within the neighborhood.

The upper level of the viaduct is a a 4 kilometer (2.5 miles) linear park.

SECTION V: CASE STUDIES 43 Case Studies

Ameliorate East River Esplanade, New York, NY

Background in just eight years. The Esplanade is for that reason linked to Lower Manhattan’s The East River Esplanade is a planned transformation into a residential neighborhood 3.2-kilometer-long (2-mile) series of public and efforts to attract investment. spaces along the Lower Manhattan waterfront SHoP and Ken Smith Landscape Architects, and below F.D.R. Drive, an elevated highway. the City’s consultants, developed a plan The F.D.R. was constructed in 1954. The for new programs, upland connections, and highway extends over more than 125 city open spaces on historic slips and piers. New blocks from Battery Park, north along the East program pavilions under the F.D.R. and River to Harlem. In Lower Manhattan, it forms surface treatments to its structure provide a barrier between downtown neighborhoods a transition from Lower Manhattan to the and the waterfront. The Esplanade planning waterfront. area includes six waterfront districts, from The project is funded by US $150 million the Financial District to the Lower East Side. from the Lower Manhattan Development The area is characterized by high-density Corporation. development – office towers to the south, “towers-in-the-park” housing development to the north. Urban Design

This project is one among many public realm The F.D.R. poses development barriers at both and redevelopment efforts sponsored since neighborhood and city scales. Within Lower September 11th by the Lower Manhattan Manhattan, it reduces access to inter-modal Development Corporation, Department of transportation – ferry and helicopter – and City Planning, and Economic Development retail on East River piers. Improved access will Corporation. Population in Lower Manhattan most directly benefit new area residents. At has doubled – from 23,000 to 56,000 –

Rendering by SHoP of cladding, surfaces, plantings, and pavilions under F.D.R. Drive.

44 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY the same time, the Esplanade is one among treats the elevated structure as a “roof”, The F.D.R. has excess capacity in its Lower several new open spaces in New York Harbor, creating a safe and inviting environment. Manhattan segment. However, accommodating including Governor’s Island. The Esplanade is existing capacity would require a six-lane The plan also addresses, in contrast to the thus also considered a city-scale development at-grade boulevard – which would limit Westway, ecological impacts on aquatic life. strategy. land available for the esplanade. There was Existing piers will be renovated to increase therefore a trade-off between the boulevard The Esplanade creates benefits at both water flow through piles. Reef-balls will be alternative and potential public space created. neighborhood and city scales through installed at pile bases to encourage fish connections, program, and public realm. habitat formation. Though construction is publically funded, the The design includes a diverse, yet visually Esplanade’s US $3.5 million operating budget coordinated streetscape and exterior has a projected shortfall of 50 to 66 percent. furnishings palette. New seating, planters, Process arbors, and landforms upland create public The purpose of the project was primarily spaces and mark pedestrian paths to the river. esplanade design, and so highway removal The environment under the F.D.R. is also alternatives were not considered in detail. The improved so as to provide continuity of urban Environmental Impact Statement proposed two activity from upland neighborhoods to the river. additional alternatives. New glass pavilions – 1,500 to 8,000 SF in The first studied scenarios for building two size – are proposed to accommodate a range to six residential towers over the F.D.R. of retail, food, and community-requested Construction feasibility and cost ruled out this programs. The underside of the F.D.R. will be alternative. The second proposed replacing the clad with a modular system of noise-abating F.D.R. with an at-grade boulevard. panels and lighting. The design approach

LESSONS OF THE EAST RIVER ESPLANADE • The Esplanade design embraced the elevated structure and its • The continued presence of the F.D.R. increases development costs form as an opportunity, leading to innovative approaches to public for other waterfront sites. Construction costs for redevelopment of realm creation and a visually distinguished urban space. South Street Seaport, for example, were increased due to presence of the elevated highway. • This public amenity is created in the context of an existing commuter population of hundreds of thousands, growing residential population, and public and private investments.

Views of F.D.R. along the East River facing south towards Lower Manhattan.

Rendering by SHoP of Esplandade south of Brooklyn Bridge.

SECTION V: CASE STUDIES 45 Case Studies

Do Nothing Buffalo Skyway / Route 5, Buffalo, NY

Background Buffalo’s Mayor and the local Congressman both support study of the Skyway’s demolition. Ongoing improvement studies to Route 5, a They cite another NYSDOT “management limited access highway on Buffalo’s south side, study” that shows long-term Skyway have prompted city and state leaders to call maintenance – ranging from 50 to 75 years – for removal of the Buffalo Skyway. would cost more than demolition. However, the Route 5 EIS recommends a design that The Buffalo Skyway was constructed in 1966. provides no new bridges over the Buffalo River. The elevated structure is 360 meters tall (110 feet). It approaches downtown Buffalo from Because the Skyway provides the only the south, crossing from the Outer Harbor access from Route 5 into downtown, the over the Buffalo River. Route 5 is a grade- recommended design for Route 5 rules out separated highway to the south and is the only future removal of the Skyway. highway that connects to the Skyway. Route 5 extends south 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) through Urban Design the Outer Harbor, a manufacturing district on Lake Erie. The Skyway decreases access to a planned The New York State Department of waterfront pedestrian and bicycle greenway Transportation (NYSDOT) undertook studies and places an urban eyesore on views of Lake in 2006 to improve Outer Harbor access and Erie and the Buffalo skyline. The Skyway potentially replace Route 5 with a boulevard. is closed frequently due to snow and auto The studies did not consider alternatives for accidents. the Skyway. Yet because the Skyway is an Yet its most significant measure may be extension of Route 5, its future is contingent opportunity cost. Redevelopment of 25 acres on the EIS outcome. of land reclaimed from Skyway demolition

The Skyway is 360 meters (110 feet) tall.

46 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY would return US $47.5 million. Altogether, Process million to improve 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) an at-grade configuration would open up of Lake Erie Shoreline. A 12.5-acre, US $53 77 acres to redevelopment, much of which NYSDOT evaluated four alternatives for million redevelopment project was recently would be sold by NYSDOT. In addition, the Route 5: no action; modifying ramps and completed in Buffalo’s Inner Harbor. Another at-grade alternative makes redevelopment of interchanges; replacement with a six-lane $100 million of other cultural and civic Buffalo’s Inner Harbor waterfront area complex. boulevard; and a hybrid of the modify and improvements for the waterfront are also Similarly, Route 5, in its present configuration, boulevard alternatives. planned. reduces potential Outer Harbor development. The selection of the second alternative – While the Mayor and Congressman support The broad benefits from replacing Route 5 modify – appears most directly based on cost. further study for Skyway demolition, decision- and the Skyway with at-grade roads are public All four alternatives scored roughly equal making authority rests with NYSDOT. waterfront connections and new development when evaluated against quantitative and opportunities. Urban design considerations, qualitative objectives. These ranged from level- however, are for the most part absent of-service and travel time to waterfront access from the NYSDOT EIS. The recommended and neighborhood impact. Yet the second alternative, for example, leaves in place the alternative’s estimated cost was US $95.1 highway embankment, a significant physical million, whereas the boulevard’s was US $124 and visual barrier. The alternative also million. recommends expanding a parallel service road – Furhmann Boulevard. Doing so uses Despite NYSDOT’s recommendation to retain land for infrastructure and offers minimal new the Skyway and Route 5, several public and waterfront access. private waterfront developments are planned. The “Greenbelt” project will spend US $14

LESSONS OF THE BUFFALO SKYWAY • At-grade alternative offers opportunity for state to recapture value • Current NYSDOT recommendation uses waterfront land for of public infrastructure investment by selling land reclaimed infrastructure development and fragments existing development through highway removal. parcels.

View of Skyway facing south. Route 5 is a significant barrier to the Outer Harbor.

SECTION V: CASE STUDIES 47 Case Studies

Do Nothing Whitehurst Freeway, Washington, D.C.

Background Urban Design

The Whitehurst Freeway is a 1.2 kilometer The Whitehurst’s neighborhood impact is (0.75 mile) four-lane elevated highway in the particularly accentuated by the development Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. of the new waterfront park. Whereas the The District Department of Transportation surrounding area was characterized by (DDOT) initiated in 2005 replacement studies lumberyards and meat packing plants when for the Whitehurst, seven years following the Whitehurst was constructed, today a major renovation. The Mayor abruptly Georgetown is a gentrified, mixed-use discontinued DDOT’s studies in 2007. neighborhood.

Georgetown is a medium density mixed-use The freeway poses a barrier for pedestrian neighborhood northwest of downtown D.C. connections. Just a single transportation The Whitehurst Freeway was constructed mode – automobile – is accommodated along in 1949 along the Potomac River, which the waterfront. Additionally, real estate values forms Georgetown’s southern edge. 45,000 that might benefit from the new park are drivers use the highway daily, many of which diminished by the Whitehurst’s proximity. commute downtown from northwest D.C., The DDOT study focused most specifically Maryland, and Virginia. A significant link on accommodating peak traffic volumes. exists at the Whitehurst’s western end where Preserving river views and improving it meets Francis Scott Key Bridge, which pedestrian connections were project objectives, connects to Virginia. but urban design was not a significant A 10-acre park, Georgetown Waterfront Park, consideration. In fact, DDOT’s emphasis was constructed by the National Park Service on traffic appears to have focused public in the mid-2000s along the Potomac River in attention on congestion, distracting dialogue the area riverside of the Whitehurst Freeway. from potential design benefits.

The Whitehurst Freeway along the Potomac River.

48 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY Process the Whitehurst with a tunnel. Altogether, 19 alternatives were developed within these four The Whitehurst Freeway was renovated in families. 1998 at a cost of $35 million. The decision Design alternatives, however, dwelled on to rehabilitate the freeway followed a study specific minor changes rather than posing that also considered demolition. Since distinct design concepts. The evaluation then, the area experienced increasing high- criteria were similarly complicated. Each value development, including a Ritz-Carlton alternative was scored against 28 criteria. residence and a movie theater. The case made Each criteria score was then weighted based regarding the elevated freeway was that its on a level of significance established through removal will help to achieve the waterfront’s public input. full revitalization potential. Existing condition on K Street under the Ultimately, the five highest-scoring designs DDOT studied four families of alternatives: no elevated structure. represented each of the three build build; replacing the Whitehurst with a six-lane alternatives. The alternatives evaluation at-grade boulevard with connections to Key process did not therefore provide a clear Bridge; a six-lane at-grade boulevard without design direction. connections to Key Bridge; and replacing

LESSONS OF THE WHITEHURST FREEWAY • Public dialogue focused on congestion issues and perceived • The case to remove the Whitehurst Freeway was weakened since potential for project to contribute to further gentrification of $35 million had been invested in its rehabilitation in the last Georgetown. decade.

• The Whitehurst Freeway serves a role in regional commuting patterns. However, the study did not analyze regional impacts of removing the highway.

New Georgetown Waterfront Park – Whitehurst Freeway is visible to the right, Francis Scott Key Bridge in the background. SECTION V: CASE STUDIES 49 (This page intentionally left blank.) “Teasers” and Boulevards

SECTION VI: “TEASERS” AND BOULEVARDS 51 “Teasers”

WHAT IS A “TEASER”?

The following precedents address the challenges of urban highways and elevated structures in ambitious and innovative ways.

These projects combine landscape architecture, infrastructure design, pedestrian realm planning, and development to create unique and dramatic spaces in the city.

Waterfront Park – Louisville, KY • This park designed by Hargreaves slopes under I-64, providing a new waterfront connection.

Voie George Pompidou – Paris, France • In summer, the highway along the Seine riverbanks is closed, making way for “Paris plages” – temporary urban beaches.

Carrasco Square – Amsterdam, The Netherlands • Surface materials activate the space under an eleavated rail in this project by West 8. 52 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY The High Line – New York, NY • A decommissioned evelated rail in Manhattan has been re-imagined by Field Operations as a linear park. The new Standard Hotel is partially built on air-rights over the High Line. Steven Holl’s 1981 conceptual project “Bridge of Houses” (left) proposed housing on the High Line.

Slussen International Design Competition (2009) – Stockholm, Sweden • Jean Nouvel proposes to create a Ponte Vecchio-esque pedestrian bridge of shops and restaurants atop a 1950s-era highway in downtown Stockholm.

SECTION VI: “TEASERS” AND BOULEVARDS 53 “Teasers” and Urban Boulevards

STREETS AS CIVIC SPACES

Prominent urban boulevards often provide separate spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as generous landscape and tree canopy.

These precedents from around the world offer ideas for improving the streetscape quality in the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard area.

Avinguda Diagonal – Barcelona, Spain • The Diagonal separates local and thru-traffic and provides bicycle and pedestrian realm.

Pacific Boulevard – Vancouver, British Columbia • Vancouver recently enhanced landscape, lighting, and sidewalks on Pacific Boulevard. 54 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY University Avenue – Toronto, ON • University Avenue serves as a significant civic space for the city.

Eastern Parkway – Brooklyn, NY Octavia Boulevard – San Francisco, CA • A generous promenade is part on this Olmstead-designed boulevard. • This boulevard replaced the Central Freeway, an elevated highway.

Shanghai Street Greening – Shanghai, China • Landscape planters enhance visual quality of elevated highways in Shanghai. SECTION VI: “TEASERS” AND BOULEVARDS 55 (This page intentionally left blank.) Summary Matrix

SECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 57 Case Study Summary Matrix

Vehicles Name Context Type Location Age Size per day 2.4 km – – Toronto, Ontario 43 120,000 Gardiner Expressway (1.5 miles)

3.2 km Replace Seattle, WA 50 110,000 Alaskan Way Viaduct (2 mile)

37 West Side Highway (at time Replace / 8.2 km New York, NY of 140,000 Reconstruction Project / Remove (5 miles) Westway collapse in 1974)

Montreal, 1 km Remove 42 55,000 Bonaventure Expressway Quebec (0.6 miles)

50+ (at Riverfront Parkway / 2.7 km Remove Cattanooga, TN time of 20,000 (1.7 mile) 21st Century Waterfront removal)

32 (at San Francisco, 2.5 km Remove time of 80,000 Embarcadero Freeway CA (1.6 mile) collapse)

Cheonggyecheon 24 (at 6.1 km Remove Seoul, Korea time of (3.75 120,000 Restoration Project removal) miles)

2 km Remove Bronx, NY 47 40,000 Sheridan Expressway (1.25 mile)

58 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals Transportation Goals Economic Dev. Goals

– – – –

• Replace elevated structure with deep • Increase downtown and waterfront bored tunnel and six-lane at-grade property values. • Increase pedestrian access to the boulevard. • Grow tourism through new waterfront waterfront. • No significant open space goals • Provide new light rail along Viaduct amenities. • Preserve and enhance views of waterfront beyond enhancing waterfront route. • Most waterfront land is privately- and mountains. access. • Public dialogue about alternatives owned, so limited opportunity for City considered whether future scenario to recapture $4.24 billion public should accommodate current traffic investment in the bored tunnel. volumes or encourage mode-shift.

• Demolish elevated highway and replace with six-lane at-grade • Whereas Westway was intended • Boulevard design coordinated with boulevard. to create long-term development • Enhance pedestrian connections to plans and design guidelines for opportunities on filled land, the West waterfront. Hudson River Park and Manhattan • Limit access in order to reduce Side Highway created demand for Greenway. congestion on neighborhood streets, but enhance role as collector- adaptive reuse and infill. distribution road.

• Reclaim 4.5 acres of development • Demolish elevated expressway and parcels for residential and office. expand two at-grade boulevards. • Develop 12,500 new housing units. • Enhance value of redevelopment in Cite • Provide access to Peel Basin, • New light rail to reduce automobile • Develop 900,000 square meters of Multimedia and Griffintown. waterfront park network, and demand. commercial, and 1 million square • Create new entrance to the city. waterfront amenities. • Create new underground pedestrian meters of cultural and recreation space. • Develop new retail under railroad viaduct. network with connections to transit stations.

• Create a framework for new • Integrate downtown street grid with new • New and reconstructed waterfront • Replace grade-separated parkway with development downtown and on the urban boulevard, thereby creating new park, amenities, and amphitheater. at-grade boulevard. Tennessee River’s north shore. development parcels. • New pedestrian connections • Reduce excess road capacity to meet • 21st Century Waterfront is estimated to • Connect downtown cultural amenities to across Tennessee River. existing demand. have attracted US $2 billion in private the waterfront. investment.

• Complement new urban boulevard with • Replace earthquake-damaged elevated waterfront esplanade, public art, and new • Reclaim 100 acres for new housing, highway with six-lane at-grade urban retail and housing development. office, and public space. boulevard. • Reconnect downtown San Francisco to • New waterfront esplanade and • Encourage development of over • Advance city’s “transit first” policies the bay. pedestrian and bicycle greenway. 10,000 new housing units in adjacent by providing new waterfront streetcar neighborhoods. • Restoration of the historic Ferry Building route. as a regional food market.

• Replace four-lane elevated expressway and ten-lane at-grade highway with • Strengthen Seoul’s position as a global • Advance Mayor’s commitment to • Create new open space amenity two two-lane boulevards. financial center. making Seoul a model for sustainable for entire city. • Create new bus rapid transit service • Government reported cost at US $390 development. • Day-light historic creek and create on Cheonggyecheon route. million, though may have been as high • Reverse property value and population waterfront esplanade. • Reduce traffic demand through as US $900 million. decline in commercial and retail districts incentives for commuters to use • facing Cheonggyecheon Expressway. transit and increasing user fees.

• The purpose of the study was to • Provide 1,200 affordable housing units • Reclaim land for housing and waterfront improve truck circulation into Hunts and 700 jobs. open space. Point Market. A community plan • Connect to planned Bronx River • Enhance upland neighborhood property • Improve access to Hunts Point Market proposed removing the highway. While watershed greenway. values by improving waterfront (wholesale food distribution center). the NYSDOT included this option connections. in their study, it was ultimately not selected.

SECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 59 Case Study Summary Matrix

Vehicles Name Context Type Location Age Size per day

400 Zaanstadt, meters Ameliorate 30+ N/A A8ern8 Netherlands (0.25 miles)

Viaduct des Arts / 2 km Ameliorate Paris, France 150+ (1.25 N/A Promenade Plantee miles)

East River Waterfront 3.2 km Ameliorate New York, NY 55 175,000 Esplanade (2 miles)

1.6 km Do Nothing Buffalo, NY 43 43,400 Buffalo Skyway / Route 5 (1 mile)

1.2 km Washington, Do Nothing 60 (0.75 45,000 Whitehurst Freeway D.C. miles)

60 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY Urban Design Goals Open Space Goals Transportation Goals Economic Dev. Goals

• Create a new “civic arcade”. • Re-establish physical and visual • Provide a diversity of recreation connections between town center and • Supermarket tenant was attracted programs that appeal to range of waterfront. • This project made no changes to to site that offered opportunity for users and age-groups (skateboard existing highway configuration. highway accessibility and large floor- • Clad underside of elevated structure in park, basketball, and marina, plate in town. order to create inviting environment. among others). • Develop new retail under elevated structure.

• Create a new Paris landmark through historic restoration of 19th-century infrastructure. • Strengthen role of Avenue Daumensil • Railroad viaduct closed in 1969. • Develop new 2.5-mile-long linear • Re-tenant retail and cultural spaces as a neighborhood cultural and retail This project had no significant park on top of elevated rail viaduct. with up-scaled uses. corridor. transportation goals. • Advance city agency goal for “greening the city”.

• Develop new public spaces and programmed pavilions under elevated • Support overall post-September 11th highway. planning for Lower Manhattan to • Clad underside of elevated structure • Street section and parking under • Develop network of upland public provide new amenities for residents in order to create inviting environment. elevated highway reconfigured in spaces, arbors, and planters that and works. Elevated highway treated as “roof” for order to create pedestrian-friendly connect to waterfront esplanade. • Advance transformation of Lower new public spaces. environment. Manhattan into a residential district. • Coordinate with and enhance other post- September 11th Lower Manhattan public realm and development initiatives.

• Improve access to planned • At-grade option (not recommended by • Route 5 study does not consider • Improve access to Outer Harbor waterfront pedestrian and bicycle NYSDOT) would create value recapture significant urban design goals. (manufacturing district on Lake Erie). greenway. opportunities for the state.

• Build on previous decade of increased property values by removing • Improve pedestrian access from impediment to waterfront revitalization. neighborhood to Potomac River. • Provide alternative route for 45,000 • Connect to new waterfront park. • $35 million public investment in • Preserve and improve river views. vehicles that use Whitehurst Freeway. rehabilitating the freeway in 1998 weakened argument for its removal.

SECTION VII: SUMMARY MATRIX 61 (This page intentionally left blank.) Sources

SECTION VIII: SOURCES 63 Sources

International Cases Kirk, Donald. 2005. Seoul peels back Washington State Department of concrete to let a river run freely once again. Transportation. June 2008. S. Holgate The Christian Science Monitor, October 13. Street to S. King Street Viaduct Replacement Project Environmental A8ern8 – Zaanstadt, NL Lee, In-Keun. Undated. “Cheong Gye Cheon Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Restoration Project,” White Paper, Seoul Bordas, David Bravo. 2006 “A8ernA.” Joint Evaluation. City of Seattle. Metropolitan Government. Seoul, Korea. Winner, European Prize for Urban Public Schneider, Keith. 2006. A City’s Waterfront: A Space, Centre for Cultura Contemporania de Park, Kil-Dong. Undated. “Cheonggyecheon Place for People or Traffic? New York Times, Barcelona. Restoration Project,” White Paper, Seoul October 25, Automobiles section. Metropolitan Government. Seoul, Korea. Municipality of Almere. 2005. Uniek Bierman, Noah. 2008. As other cities consider vernieuwingsproject in Koog aan de Zaan Sang-Hun, Choi. 2005. Seoul’s mayor shows removing elevated highways, activists cite maakt van de nood een deugd. Boogaart his green streak. International Herald Boston as a reason not to go underground. Journal, Number 11. Almere, Netherlands. Tribune, July 25. Boston Globe, October 14. Municipality of Zaanstad. 2003 “A8ernA, Seattle Department of Transportation. 2007. City of Seattle Mayor’s Communication Office. Programma van eisen.” Planning Document. “Case Studies in Urban Freeway Removal,” 2009. Deep bored tunnel to replace Alaskan September. Zaanstad, Netherlands. Seattle Urban Mobility Plan. Seattle, WA. Way Viaduct. Press Release. January 13.

McGann, Chris and Larry Lange. 2009. Bonaventure Freeway – Montreal, QU Viaduc des Arts / Promenade Plantee Viaduct choice: It’s a tunnel. Seattle Post – Paris, FR Intelligencer, January 13. Gyulai, Linda. 2009. Bonaventure comes down soon, Phase 1 of plan to extend Meade, Martin. 1996. Parisian promenade downtown to waterfront could start by spring. – viaduct refurbishment in Paris, France. Buffalo Skyway – Buffalo, NY Montreal Gazette, February 4. Architectural Review, September. New York State Department of Transportation. Société du Havre de Montréal. October 2005. Cambell, Robert. 2002. A Paris Match? May 2006. South Towns Connector / Buffalo L’autoroute Bonaventure Vision 2025. City Boston can learn something about creating Outer Harbor Project. Final Design Report of Montreal, Canada. new civic space from the City of Light. / Final Environmental Impact Statement. Boston Globe, March 12. Société du Havre de Montréal. 2007. Section 4(f) Evaluation. Erie County, New “Bonaventure Highway Reconfiguration York. Project, Executive Summary of the Technical United States Cases Gibson, Lucinda and Normal Marshall. 2007. Pre-Feasibility Study.” April. City of Summary of Current NYSDOT Plans for Montreal, Canada. Alaskan Way Viaduct (Seattle, WA) Buffalo’s Waterfront. Memorandum. August Société du Havre de Montréal. Transformation 21. Interview with Jeffrey Tumlin, Principal, of the Bonaventure Expressway at the Nelson \ Nygaard. February 26, 2009. New York State Department of Transportation. Downtown Gateway, From Saint-Jacques October 2008. New York State Route Street to Brennan Street, Summary of the Washington State Department of 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study, Project Feasibility Studies. April. City of Transportation. March 2004. Alaskan Way Executive Summary. City of Buffalo. Montreal, Canada. Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Draft EIS. City of Seattle. New York State Department of Transportation. October 2008. New York State Route 5 Cheonggyecheon Freeway – Washington State Department of Buffalo Skyway Management Study, Report. Seoul, Korea Transportation. July 2006. Alaskan City of Buffalo. Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Helfand, Duke. 2006. Seoul’s revitalized Supplemental Draft EIS. City of Seattle. Fink, James. 2008. Skyway to Stay, Most Say. waterway is awash in ideas for L.A. Los Business First of Buffalo, July 11. Angeles Times, October 18.

64 FUTURE OF THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY Office of Congressman Brian Higgins. 2008. Newman, Morris. 2003. New Life for San New York State Department of Transportation. Higgs Says New DOT Report Confirms Francisco’s Harbor. New York Times, June 2008. Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Economic Argument for Skyway Removal. 23, Real Estate section. Reconstruction/Hunts Point Peninsula Press Release. November 20. Access EIS Newsletter. Issue Six, Summer 2008. New York, NY. 21st Century Waterfront / Riverfront East River Waterfront – New York, NY Parkway – Chattanooga, TN O’Grady, Jim. 2001. Neighborhood Report: Bronx Up Close; Sheridan’s Fork in the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. City of Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce. Road: Either Fix It or Kill It. New York 2007. East River Waterfront Final 2005. City Enjoys $2.1 Billion in Times, November 11, City Weekly desk. Environmental Impact Statement. November. Investment since 2001. Press Release. New York, NY. February. South Bronx River Watershed Alliance. N / D “The New Community on Sheridan: A New Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Marshall, Alex. 2005. Chattanooga Crossroads: Vision for the South Bronx.” Brochure. 2007. East River Waterfront Final After completing an ambitious waterfront Environmental Impact Statement, Executive initiative the city recently changed South Bronx River Watershed Alliance. N / D Summary. November. New York, NY. leadership, raising the question: Is this the “Quick Facts about the Bruckner-Sheridan end of 20 years of urban enlightenment?, Interchange Project and the Community New York City Department of City Planning. Metropolis, October 17. Plan.” Brochure. 2008. “Draft Text Amendment for East River Waterfront Park.” July 2. New York, NY RiverCity Company. 2001. Transportation Topousis, Tom. 2000. Boondoggle Highway, and Urban Design Plan for Chattanooga $420M face lift for ‘road to nowhere’. New New York City Economic Development Riverfront Parkway. Chattanooga, TN. York Post, October 2. Corporation. 2006. Transforming the East River Waterfront. New York, NY. RiverCity Company. 2002. The 21st Century Waterfront, Executive Summary. West Side Highway – New York, NY Ouroussoff, Nicolai. 2005. Making the Brutal Chattanooga, TN. F.D.R. Unsentimentally Humane. New York Garvin, Alexander. 2002. The American City: Times, June 28, Arts section. What Works, What Doesn’t. New York: Sheridan Expressway – Bronx, NY McGraw-Hill Companies.

Embarcadero Freeway – Burger, Danielle. 2003. A Community Plan United States Department of Transportation San Francisco, CA for Moses’ ‘Highway to Nowhere’. Gotham Federal Highway Administration. 1997. Gazette, August 8. Flexibility in Highway Design. Washington, Interview with Douglas Wright, Principal, DC. Douglas Wright Consulting. February 27, Interview with Melanie Bin Jung, South Bronx 2009. River Watershed Analysis. March 3, 2009. Whitehurst Freeway – Cervero, Robert, et. al. December 2007. New York State Department of Transportation. Washington, DC “From Elevated Freeways to Surface 2003. “Alternatives: Long List.” New York, Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and NY. District Department of Transportation. Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco,” 2006. Whitehurst Freeway Deconstruction New York State Department of Transportation. Working Paper prepared for University of Feasibility Study Draft Evaluation of 2004. “Alternatives: Modified Long List.” California Transportation Center. Berkeley, Alternatives. Washington, DC. New York, NY. CA. Lewis, Roger. 2007. Remove Whitehurst, New York State Department of Transportation. Cervero, Robert. October 2006. “Freeway and Behold the Potential – and Pitfalls. 2004. “Alternatives: Recommended for Deconstruction and Urban Regeneration Washington Post, April 14, Columns section. Further Processing.” New York, NY. in the United States,” Paper prepared Soloman, Victoria. 2007. Mayor Freezes for the International Symposium for the New York State Department of Transportation. Study on Whitehurst Future. The Northwest 1st Anniversary of the Cheonggyecheon 2007. Alternatives Screening Report. New Current, July 4. Restoration, Seoul, Korea. Berkeley, CA. York, NY. Hastrup, Stefan. 2005. Battle for a Neighborhood. Places, 18.2, October.

SECTION VIII: SOURCES 65 Future of the Gardiner Expressway Environmental Assessment and Urban Design Study

Case Studies March 26, 2009

Consistent with our commitment to sustainability, our printed materials contain recycled content and are 100% recyclable. Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix C PARAMICS Model Results Summary

Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ...... 1

2.0 DEMAND FORECASTING ...... 4

2.1. Approach and Method...... 4 2.2. Regional Demand Forecasts ...... 4 3.0 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE...... 8

3.1. Automobile ...... 8 3.2. Transit ...... 14 3.3. Pedestrian ...... 15 3.4. Cycling ...... 16 3.5. Goods Movement ...... 17 3.6. Safety ...... 17

List of Tables

Table 1: Initial 2031 Mode Shares Across Study Area Boundary 5Projected by EMME Model ..5 Table 2: Final 2031 Mode Shares Across Study Area Boundary ...... 6 Table 3 – Travel Demand Management Trip Reductions ...... 7 Table 4 – Regional Travel Times...... 9 Table 5 – Travel Time Stratification Results ...... 14 Table 6 – Travel Times Along Key Transit Corridors ...... 14

Dillon Consulting Limited Page i

Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

1.0 Alternative Solutions

Four infrastructure networks were tested, referred to as Maintain, Improve, Replace, and Remove. All alternatives assumed the following new infrastructure projects as part of the transportation systems: x Broadview Extension x Richmond/Adelaide bicycle lanes x Downtown Relief Line x Waterfront West LRT x Cherry Street LRT

The four Alternative Solutions are described below.

Maintain

This is the future base condition that is used as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The Gardiner Expressway is not altered from today in this alternative; Lake Shore Boulevard is realigned between Parliament Street and the Don Roadway as per the local Precinct Plan. The basic cross-section assumptions within the Gardiner/ Lake Shore Boulevard corridor are described below.

Number of Traffic Lanes Road Segment Gardiner Expressway Lake Shore Boulevard W/B E/B W/B E/B Yonge – Jarvis 3 3 3 3 Jarvis – Sherbourne 3 3 3 3 Sherbourne – Parliament 3 3 3 3 Parliament – Cherry 3 3 3 3 Cherry – Don Roadway 3 3 3 3

Improve

The Improve alternative maintains the basic alignment and ramp locations of the Gardiner Expressway, but the cross-section of the Gardiner Expressway is reduced. Lake Shore Boulevard is realigned between Parliament Street and the Don Roadway as per the local Precinct

Page 1 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Plan. The basic cross-section assumptions within the Gardiner/ Lake Shore Boulevard corridor are described below.

Number of Traffic Lanes Road Segment Gardiner Expressway Lake Shore Boulevard W/B E/B W/B E/B Yonge – Jarvis 2 2 3 3 Jarvis – Sherbourne 2 2 3 3 Sherbourne – Parliament 2 2 3 3 Parliament – Cherry 2 2 3 3 Cherry – Don Roadway 2 2 3 3

Shoulders are added to the Gardiner Expressway to improve safety for users and modifications are made to the configuration of Gardiner Expressway ramp terminals to improve the pedestrian crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard. A multi-use pathway is also added to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard between Jarvis Street and the Don Roadway.

Replace

The Replace alternative maintains the presence of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard, while reimagining the alignment, capacity, and access for both facilities. The Gardiner Expressway is reconstructed at a reduced capacity and modified alignment, as is Lake Shore Boulevard. The basic cross-section assumptions within the Gardiner/ Lake Shore Boulevard corridor are described below.

Number of Traffic Lanes Road Segment Gardiner Expressway Lake Shore Boulevard W/B E/B W/B E/B Yonge – Jarvis 2 2 2 2 Jarvis – Sherbourne 2 2 2 2 Sherbourne – Parliament 2 2 2 2 Parliament – Cherry 2 2 2 2 Cherry – Don Roadway 2 2 2 2

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 2 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Shoulders are added to the Gardiner Expressway to improve safety for users and modifications are made to the configuration of Gardiner Expressway ramp terminals to improve the pedestrian crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard. A multi-use pathway is also added to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard between Jarvis Street and the Don Roadway.

Remove

Under the Remove alternative, the Gardiner Expressway is removed between Jarvis Street and the Don Roadway and is brought to the surface to create a larger Lake Shore Boulevard. This is a major modification to the function of the infrastructure through the study area. The basic cross-section assumptions within the Gardiner/ Lake Shore Boulevard corridor are described below.

Number of Traffic Lanes Road Segment Gardiner Expressway Lake Shore Boulevard W/B E/B W/B E/B Yonge – Jarvis 4 4 Jarvis – Sherbourne 4 4 Sherbourne – Parliament 4 4 Parliament – Cherry 4 4 Cherry – Don Roadway 4 4

A multi-use pathway is added to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard between Yonge Street and the Don Roadway.

Page 3 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

2.0 DEMAND FORECASTING

2.1. Approach and Method

Forecasting for the Gardiner Expressway EA was undertaken for a 2031 horizon year for AM and PM commuter peak hour conditions.

The transportation modelling process used an integrated application of City of Toronto’s regional planning model (in EMME/2 software) and a detailed operations model (in Paramics software) developed specifically for the project.

The EMME model provided the regional perspective on travel demand forecasting. It was used to forecast demands in the primary travel modes for Existing and 2031 conditions under the various alternative solutions. The EMME model accounts for the impacts of major road and transit infrastructure projects; growth in population and employment levels; and changes in travel patterns due to the new residential and employment areas expected to develop across the City (e.g., development of Lower Yonge, Keating, Don Lands, Port Lands will increase percentage of downtown employees who live downtown).

The Paramics model was used to develop the local assignment of auto volumes to study area roads. The study area extends from Dundas Street to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Avenue to Woodbine Avenue. While the EMME model projected auto demands on all major roads in the study area, it is a planning tool that does not account for fine operational details (e.g., delay at traffic signals, interaction with streetcars, etc.) and can be unreliable when used to project demands within a specific corridor or on a specific segment. The Paramics model took the aggregate auto demand and travel patterns for the study area from EMME and generated a more robust estimate of future auto demands.

2.2. Regional Demand Forecasts

Model results show little difference between Maintain, Improve and Replace Alternatives at a regional travel demand level; therefore one regional demand estimate was used for these three Alternatives. Model results for the Remove Alternative showed a difference in demand estimates; therefore a unique demand construct was used for this solution.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 4 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Initial Mode Shares

Table 1 shows the Initial 2031 Mode Shares for AM peak hour travel inbound across the Study Area boundaries, as projected by the EMME strategic demand forecasting model.

Table 1: Initial 2031 Mode Shares Across Study Area Boundary Projected by EMME Model Travel Mode Existing 2031 2031 2006 TTS Maintain/Improve/Replace Remove Auto (Driver + Passenger) 31% 28% 28% Transit (GO + TTC) 60% 66% 66% Walking/ Cycling 6% 6% 6% Other 3% -- --

TDM Adjustments

Traditional strategic travel demand models such as the City of Toronto’s EMME model applied on this project inherently have difficulty in representing the attitudinal shifts towards travel that may occur over time. They are attempting to predict the future by looking at the past and therefore may not accurately represent the choices of travellers in the future. It was, therefore, necessary to adjust the travel demand forecasts into and out of the primary study area to account for expected changes in trip making characteristics for future travellers. This was accomplished through research and investigation into the underlying factors that affect trip making behaviour.

The results of the research can be found in Appendix D to the Gardiner East Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT. In summary, adjustments to trip-making behaviour were considered in four different areas, as follows: x Transit mode shares were increased beyond the levels forecasted by EMME to reflect the impacts of additional transit opportunities (e.g., Downtown Relief Line), negative effects of increased auto congestion and an increase in propensity to use transit by workers between the ages of 20-40. x Walking and cycling mode shares were increased to reflect the forecasted increase in the number of work trips under 5km in length and the attractiveness of walking and cycling modes for such trips. It is expected that the current trend of increasing population in the study area will continue (as planned by the various Precinct Plans) and that the increasing portion of people “living downtown/ working downtown” will continue.

Page 5 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014 x Overall travel demand levels were decreased to reflect an increase in the opportunity to avoid trip making altogether (home-based work, flexible work arrangements, e-commerce, etc.). x Overall peak hour travel demand levels were decreased to reflect the movement of trips outside of the traditional commuter peak hour to avoid peak hour travel times.

The memorandum concluded that, according to current research and real-world observations, there is a potential range of auto demand reduction between 16% and 27%. The elements that make up these potential reductions are shown in Table 2.

Final Mode Shares

Table 3 presents the Final Mode Shares for AM peak hour travel inbound across the study area boundary assumed for the demand forecasting exercise.

Table 3: Final 2031 Mode Shares Across Study Area Boundary 2031 2031 Travel Mode Existing Maintain/Improve/Replace Remove 2006 TTS Initial Final Initial Final Auto (Driver + Passenger) 31% 28% 22% 28% 20% Transit (GO + TTC) 60% 66% 71% 66% 73% Walking/ Cycling 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% Other 3% ------

As Table 3 shows, it was determined that the shift away from auto travel in the Remove scenario would be higher due to the extent of capacity removal. The symbolism of removal of a significant portion of a high capacity elevated freeway will also contribute to this shift from long distance auto travel.

Two items are noted in reading Tables 2 and 3:

1. Table 2 shows reductions in AM peak hour demands (all modes) that are unrelated to shifts to non-auto modes (peak spreading, trip reductions, and trip elimination). These factors were used to reduce the auto volumes assigned to the Study Area roads. It is noted that these reductions were higher under the Remove Alternative than the Maintain/ Improve/ Replace Alternatives due to the impacts of increased congestion.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 6 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Table 2 – Travel Demand Management Trip Reductions

2. Table 2 shows increases in walking and cycling mode shares of 5%-7% for short trips (5km or less). The increase in walking/cycling mode share at the Study Area boundary is modest (1%), as trips crossing the boundary tend to be longer trips. Walking and cycling mode shares for short trips (particularly those within the Study Area) were increased to the levels indicated in Table 2.

Final Auto Demand Forecasts

The resulting 2031 total AM peak hour auto volume forecasts within the study area are: x 70,500 vehicles per hour (vph) for the Maintain/ Improve/ Replace Alternatives; and x 63,000 vph for the Remove Alternative.

Page 7 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

3.0 System Performance

3.1. Automobile

Commuter Travel Time

Table 4 and Figures 1-4 present the projected AM peak hour commuter travel times under the four Alternative Solutions. The model results show that the travel times are lowest for the Maintain Alternative, roughly equivalent and slightly higher for the Improve and Replace Alternatives, and highest for the Remove Alternative.

Modelling also showed that all alternatives have an equivalent sensitivity to the transit assumptions. Increases in travel time of between two and four minutes were observed for all alternatives for all origin-destination pairs.

Impact on Average Auto Travel Time

Table 5 shows the impact on the average auto travel time for all auto users in the AM peak hour within the study area. The calculation is based on all auto trips travelling in any direction in the study area in the AM peak hour.

The model results show that the travel time impacts are lowest for the Maintain alternative, roughly equivalent and slightly higher for the Improve and Replace alternatives and highest for the Remove alternative.

Road Network Flexibility

The existing configuration of the Gardiner Expressway/ Gardiner Expressway ramps/ Lake Shore Blvd has a number of awkward intersections with offsets, poor angles of intersection for the side roads, or ramp conflicts at intersections. The result is turn prohibitions at intersections; at least one turning movement is prohibited at every major intersection on Lake Shore Boulevard. In total, there are 12 movements currently prohibited at five intersections.

The geometric changes proposed under the four alternative scenarios reduce the prohibitions to six (Maintain), three (Improve), and zero (Replace and Remove) under the various alternatives. Given the improved simplicity and opportunity for circulation, the Replace and Remove alternatives are preferred, followed by the Improve alternative, and the Maintain alternative.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 8 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Table 4 – Regional Travel Times

Page 9 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Figure 1

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 10 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Figure 2

Page 11 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Figure 3

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 12 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Figure 4

Page 13 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Table 5 – Travel Time Stratification Results

3.2. Transit

Impact on Surface Transit

The change in AM peak hour travel time for streetcars on key east-west corridors in the study area was measured to determine if the future road network conditions would result in slower travel times for surface transit (see Table 6). The Paramics model indicated that travel times would be lowest and essentially equal for the Maintain and Improve alternatives. Streetcar travel times were projected to increase by between one and four minutes (depending on the corridor and direction of travel) under the Replace and Remove alternatives.

Table 6 – Travel Times Along Key Transit Corridors

Impact on Subway Service

None of the alternatives will impact subway service.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 14 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Ability to Accommodate Planned Transit Service All of the alternatives will accommodate the major transit projects planned for the future – the Downtown Relief line, the Waterfront West LRT, the Cherry Street LRT and expansion of GO service and possibly facilities. The Remove alternative allows for greater flexibility in transit service planning east of the Don River due to the removal of the Gardiner Expressway infrastructure.

3.3. Pedestrian

Ability to Implement Standard Sidewalks North-South

Pedestrian movements across Lake Shore Boulevard will increase significantly in number with all of the planned development adjacent to the corridor. The number of people walking across the corridor to access transit north of the rail line in particular will increase sharply in the future. Adequate sidewalks on the north-south streets crossing Lake Shore Boulevard will be a key requirement.

The Maintain alternative does not allow for improvements to existing sub-standard sidewalks. The Improve alternative allows some of the crossings to be improved, but not all. The Replace and Remove alternatives are preferred as they allow for all north-south sidewalks to be improved to meet current City of Toronto standards.

Crossing Points

Existing pedestrian movements across Lake Shore Boulevard are physically impacted by the presence of columns and are interrupted by multiple medians at many crossings. These physical barriers are particularly impactful on persons with mobility challenges.

The Maintain alternative does not allow for removal of these barriers. The Improve alternative allows some of the crossings to be improved, but not all. The Replace and Remove alternatives are preferred as they allow for barriers to be removed.

North-South Crossing Distance

North-south crossing distance is a measure of the distance that must be traversed by pedestrians when crossing from the north curb to the south curb on Lake Shore Boulevard. Given the auto demands on Lake Shore Boulevard and the pressures that they place on traffic signal timing at

Page 15 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014 the intersections, the longer the crossing distance the greater the likelihood that pedestrians will encounter long delays crossing Lake Shore Boulevard.

The Replace alternative has the shortest average crossing distance (26.1m), which is not surprising as Lake Shore Boulevard has a four lane cross-section in this alternative west of the Don River. The Remove and Improve alternatives have roughly equivalent average crossing distances (32.5 to 33.5m) that are higher than the Replace alternative. The Maintain alternative has the highest average crossing distance at almost 37m.

East-West Sidewalks

Modifications to Lake Shore Boulevard will create the opportunity to construct continuous east- west sidewalks in the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor. The length of continuous sidewalk varies by alternative, as the sidewalks are constrained or eliminated in places by the Gardiner Expressway infrastructure.

The Maintain alternative allows for almost 1,500 linear metres of new sidewalk, the Improve and Replace alternative allow for almost 4,000 linear metres of new sidewalk, and the Remove alternative allows for almost 4,400 linear metres of new sidewalk.

3.4. Cycling

East-West Movement

Modifications to Lake Shore Boulevard will create the opportunity to construct continuous east- west bicycle facilities in the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor. The length of continuous cycling facility varies by alternative, as the bike facility is constrained or eliminated in places by the Gardiner Expressway infrastructure.

The Maintain alternative allows for almost 2,200 linear metres of bikeway, the Improve and Replace alternative allows for almost 3,700 linear metres of bikeway and the Remove alternative allows for almost 4,200 linear metres of bikeway.

Connectivity to North-South Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle trips are typically longer distance trips (up to 10 km); therefore connectivity of Lake Shore Boulevard facilities to north-south facilities is a critical objective.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 16 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

The Maintain and Improve alternatives do not allow for connection to an important north-south facility in the Yonge Street corridor, whereas the Replace and Remove alternatives allow connection to all existing and planned north-south cycling facilities.

3.5. Goods Movement

Vehicle Operations

Vehicle delays are particularly impactful to the freight industry. The economic impact of congestion on the goods movement industry is significant and translates directly to higher costs for the goods moved.

The model results show that the travel times are lowest for the Maintain Alternative, roughly equivalent and slightly higher for the Improve and Replace alternatives and highest for the Remove alternative.

Access Opportunity

The existing configuration of the Gardiner Expressway/ Gardiner Expressway ramps/ Lake Shore Blvd has a number of awkward intersections with offsets, poor angles of intersection for the side roads, or ramp conflicts at intersections. The result is turn prohibitions at intersections; at least one turning movement is prohibited at every major intersection on Lake Shore Boulevard. In total, there are twelve movements currently prohibited at five intersections.

The geometric changes proposed under the four alternative solutions reduce the prohibitions to six (Maintain), three (Improve), and zero (Replace and Remove) under the various alternatives. Given the improved simplicity and opportunity for circulation, the Replace and Remove alternatives are preferred, followed by the Improve alternative and the Maintain alternative.

3.6. Safety

Safety Risk for Pedestrians

The risk for pedestrian is highest when they are crossing the intersections along Lake Shore Boulevard. Even though the crossings are subject to traffic controls, pedestrians are exposed to the potential for driver error. Where there are more lanes of traffic that need to be crossed, the traffic volume to be crossed is higher, and the higher the risk to pedestrians.

Page 17 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

The Replace alternative has the lowest pedestrian risk as it has the lowest number of Lake Shore Boulevard lanes to be crossed (four). The Maintain and Improve alternatives are equal and higher than Replace at six lanes; Remove results in the highest pedestrian risk at eight lanes.

Safety Risk for Pedestrian and Cyclists

There are a number of existing conflict points for pedestrians and cyclists in the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor where there are no traffic control measures (i.e. stops signs or traffic lights) – essentially the locations where both pedestrians and cyclists must cross free flow right turns and Gardiner Expressway ramp terminals.

The Remove alternative deletes all conflict points without control measures that pedestrians and cyclists need to cross. The Maintain, Improve, and Replace alternatives all have a similar and higher number of conflict points for pedestrians and cyclists.

Safety Risk for Cyclists and Motorists – Lake Shore Boulevard

There are a number of existing road segments and intersections on Lake Shore Boulevard that are performing poorly from a road safety perspective. Some elements, such as the Lake Shore Boulevard/ Jarvis Street intersection and Lake Shore Boulevard between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, are in the top 20% of the City of Toronto’s list of road elements in need of safety improvements. The modifications proposed by the alternative solutions address the existing safety concerns to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the design of the alternative.

The Replace and Remove alternatives completely modify the existing geometry of Lake Shore Boulevard between Jarvis Street and the Don Roadway and resolve many of the existing safety concerns. The Maintain and Improve alternatives improve some of the existing concerns, but do not measurably improve the existing design of the northwest quadrant of the Lake Shore Boulevard/ Sherbourne Street intersection.

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 18 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA PARAMICS Model Results Summary Report Internal Working Draft for Discussion February 21, 2014

Safety Risk for Motorists – Gardiner Expressway

The existing geometry of the Gardiner Expressway does not meet current design guidelines for this kind of facility. Most notably the Expressway does not provide shoulders, which provide clearance from the edge barriers and a safe refuge for disabled vehicles.

The Remove alternative eliminates the Gardiner Expressway, eliminating safety concerns with the Gardiner design. The Replace and Improve alternatives improve the Gardiner Expressway geometry and provides shoulders on the Expressway and Expressway ramps. The Maintain alternative does not significantly modify the existing design of the Gardiner Expressway and the safety concerns remain.

Page 19 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix D Transportation Demand Management Paper

Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 2.0 UNDERLYING CONTEXT, PRINCIPLES AND CONSIDERATIONS ...... 1 2.1 Destined vs. through traffic ...... 1 2.2 Why people change their travel behaviour ...... 2 2.3 Potential data sources ...... 4 2.4 Smaller-scale or temporary capacity reductions in Toronto ...... 5 2.5 Model variability and risk management ...... 5 3.0 CATEGORIES OF VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTIONS ...... 7 3.1 Trip Reassignment ...... 8 3.2 Mode Shift ...... 8 3.3 Auto Occupancy...... 12 3.4 Peak Spreading...... 13 3.5 Trip Reassignment ...... 14 3.6 Trip Reduction ...... 16 3.7 Trip Elimination ...... 18 3.8 Summary ...... 19

Dillon Consulting Limited Page i

Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

1.0 Introduction

This memo outlines potential transportation demand management (TDM) measures that could affect traffic volumes in the downtown area, particularly as it relates to the modeling for the “remove” alternative in which capacity in the Gardiner / Lake Shore corridor would be substantially reduced from current levels. It is intended as a working document to stimulate discussion amongst the project team and to document assumptions.

2.0 Underlying context, principles and considerations

2.1 Destined vs. through traffic

The Gardiner / LSB corridor serves four different travel patterns: x Inbound to downtown (peak direction) x Outbound from downtown (counter-peak direction) x Through (crosstown) traffic x Local traffic (may be considered subset of inbound / outbound categories)

The greatest benefit to reducing overall demand in the corridor would be derived by reducing inbound and through traffic, although outbound (counter-peak) traffic has grown rapidly of late due to increased residential population commuting to suburban employment areas, where transit is unavailable or less attractive.

The Bluetooth survey found that less than one-quarter of vehicles approaching downtown on the Gardiner, Lake Shore and DVP is using those routes to travel through (rather than to) downtown. x 20% of eastbound Gardiner traffic at Dufferin is destined to the DVP or east Lake Shore x 15% of southbound DVP traffic north of Bayview/Bloor is destined to the Gardiner west of Spadina x 25% of westbound Lake Shore traffic at Carlaw is destined to the Gardiner west of Spadina However, in absolute terms, the through traffic on the Gardiner/Lake Shore is substantial, especially when measured against arterial lane capacity. x 1,600 vph westbound x 1,250 vph eastbound

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 1 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

The majority of through traffic is not traveling the full distance of the Gardiner and DVP (e.g., not motorists traveling from south Mississauga to Durham and deciding whether to cross Toronto via the 427 / 401 or the Gardiner / DVP).

Distinction between downtown and crosstown traffic may be important. Some solutions may be more feasible than others depending on the nature of the trip.

2.2 Why people change their travel behaviour

A review of Cairns et al1 highlights a number of points listed below.

A transportation model is based on decisions being broadly stable in aggregate, but this stability masks many underlying changes that constantly occur and sometimes cancel each other out. For example, one person retires from the workforce while another enters; one person moves to a different home or job, but is replaced by another. Normally this would cancel out and no net change would be observed in aggregate. In some cases the change from one cohort to another is substantial enough that it gradually impacts overall results (e.g., downward trends in vehicle ownership, % of adults with driver’s licenses, increased propensity to use transit).

Major life events occurring from time to time that could influence study area travel: x Place of residence: ¾ Move within Toronto (local) ¾ Move within GTA ¾ Move to / from outside GTA ¾ New residence x Place of employment ¾ Change place of employment ¾ Enter workforce ¾ Leave workforce (retire / unemployed) ¾ Change in nature of job (hours, position, responsibility) x Demographic changes ¾ Marriage ¾ Birth of dependent (or new dependent – e.g. elders) ¾ Death ¾ Other change in home responsibilities

1 Sally Cairns, Carmen Hass-Klau and Phil Goodwin. Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence. Landor Publishing, March 1998.

Page 2 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x Transportation changes ¾ Increase or decrease number of cars in household ¾ Obtain driver’s license

When making transportation choices, one is generally more amenable to changing behaviour when it occurs in conjunction with other life changes (“starting fresh”)

In life changes involving choice / options (e.g., decision to move), the decision considers many different factors; the prevailing transportation context can be a major factor. If the prevailing transportation context is different, it may result in a different decision for some people. (e.g., people may buy a home that will result in them commuting across town with the perception that the Gardiner will allow them to travel “against traffic” most of the way; people make different activity and travel choices when they know that the Gardiner is closed for the weekend).

Each of these thousands of individual changes is based on a variety of factors, including transportation. People consider the transportation network when they decide where to move, where to work, what travel mode and route to choose; and when to travel. If the transportation network changes, this may result in different choices.

Response to capacity reductions is comprised of two subsets of users: x Response by stable population of individuals (no change in place of residence, work, etc.) – change will occur to the extent that change is desirable and reasonably feasible. May be some initial changes (“low-hanging fruit”), but generally slow for the majority. This group has developed existing habits in their travel patterns; habits can be difficult to break. x Response due to ongoing changes in the population using the road – some people would have automatically left the road regardless due to underlying life changes; they would normally be backfilled by new arrivals making generally similar choices, but if the context is different, the new arrivals may make different choices or may not arrive.

It is easy to focus on the first category – “how do we get people to change?”, but the second category may lead to greater opportunity.

How to quantify? Cairns et al have UK examples of life changes over time (e.g. % moving over the past x years). An important subset may be new development in the waterfront area since it will be populated exclusively by new residents each of whom will be making certain transportation choices (O/D and mode). We can follow a “transit first” principle, although note

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 3 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013 political / financial challenges in implementing east waterfront LRT… will a transit habit develop if the underlying transit network is not in place?

Change will occur on a spectrum. Some users may need little further incentive to change; others may have no flexibility and are unlikely to change.

2.3 Potential data sources

x EMME model: ¾ Trip matrices (person, auto, transit) ¾ Select link analyses (Gardiner, LSB, Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern) ¾ Others tabulations x TTS: ¾ Modal split (CBD-oriented trips – inbound and outbound) – percentages; dot density plots ¾ Modal split (through trips – e.g., from PDxx [east of downtown] to planning districts in west Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton) – percentages; dot density plots ¾ Trip purpose breakdown (work-based vs. discretionary) ¾ Trends from 1986 through 2006 ¾ Other tabulations x Bluetooth O/D survey ¾ Through vs. local traffic breakdown x Cordon count ¾ Trends (auto occupancy, etc.) ¾ Impact during Gardiner construction x Census data x City traffic data (permanent count stations) ¾ Traffic volume changes during major construction projects x Case studies from other jurisdictions ¾ Sally Cairns et al – Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence (March 1998 report); Victoria Transport Policy Institute; others? ¾ Case study may not be directly comparable – different transportation, land use, attitudinal contexts ¾ May quantify the overall traffic reduction effects, but may not quantify the range or nature of the changes (e.g. xx% of people moved into the city so that they would not have to drive in)

Page 4 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

Select link analyses: x Where are the problems? x How substantial is the problem? x Where are these opportunities? x E.g. if a lot of traffic coming from one particular area, is there a gap in transit service?

2.4 Smaller-scale or temporary capacity reductions in Toronto

Effects can be reviewed in Toronto by reviewing impacts of construction or other smaller capacity reductions: x Streetcar track reconstruction x Gardiner / DVP closures x West Don Lands closure of Bayview south of Queen x Road lane reallocation for bike lanes (road diet) x Pedestrian scramble phase at Yonge / Dundas x Planned subway closures (transit ridership) – e.g. recent closure of downtown “U” Would likely see a combination of reduced volumes (ridership) and increased congestion (e.g. when the Gardiner is closed, the Lake Shore is severely congested, but traffic demand is also likely lower)

This approach might give end results, but may not explain why the change (quantifiably).

It was initially hypothesized that the removal of the eastern stub of the Gardiner could be a case study. However, it actually represented a capacity increase, because it eliminated a previously existing bottleneck at the single-lane ramps to/from Leslie. Net result was a shift in traffic from Lake Shore (overflow traffic) to the Gardiner.

2.5 Model variability and risk management

There will be close scrutiny of the model results (volumes and Measures of Effectiveness MOEs)). Members of the public, media, and Council will be likely to interpret results literally, whereas in practice the model is at best an estimate and requires considerable judgement in interpreting. We need to manage expectations of what the model can and cannot accomplish; it is at best an estimate of operations under a certain set of conditions and assumptions, but traffic volumes (and results) are not likely to materialize as modeled, even under the “retain” solution. There are numerous sources of error in traffic modeling that would impact the results: x Natural day-to-day traffic fluctuations

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 5 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x Increased traffic due to special events x Temporary closures or lane reductions due to construction, collisions / emergency response, or special events x Unanticipated transportation network changes not accounted for in the model x Unanticipated development proposals or changes to currently anticipated development proposals x Demographic trends leading to changes in attitudes / preferences (e.g., younger cohort obtaining driver’s license / purchasing vehicles at a later age or not at all; differing live/work location preferences) x Technological changes leading to changes in attitudes / preferences (e.g., telecommuting, smartphones) x Policy changes resulting from shift in political environment x Changes in activity beyond 20-year model horizon x Model calibration may be off (O/D pairings, trip rates, modal splits, specific assignments etc.) x PARAMICS parameters may be off (e.g. pedestrian interaction; centroid connectors)

At best, the model helps us understand - given a certain set of conditions, would this particular transportation network work?

We make our best estimates, and build in flexibility where possible to address unanticipated fluctuation and deviation. Our challenge is how to define that set of conditions, including making our best estimate of changes that we would expect to happen that the model cannot adequately capture.

Risk assessment: x How certain can we be of a particular shift occurring? x If we are unsure, are there other measures/changes that we can better rely on? x What is the backup plan in case the shift does not come to fruition? x Identify policies and infrastructure to encourage the desired shifts in behavior, but also identify changes to mitigate congestion for transit and determine which links/movements should be prioritized (e.g., metering traffic access to the network sensitive portions of the network) in the event that the shifts do not materialize

Page 6 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

3.0 Categories of Vehicle Trip Reductions

The body of research suggests a variety of ways that traffic may respond to capacity reductions. The magnitude of the response varies depending on the severity of the impacts of the capacity reduction. If capacity constraints are limited to shorter periods during the day or specific routes, motorists may only make minor adjustments to their departure time or may make routing adjustments. As capacity constraints become more geographically widespread, more severe, or of longer duration, motorists begin to make more substantial shifts.

Generally from easiest to most difficult to quantify or perhaps shorter term response to longer term response: x Shift of trips to alternate routes (local or regional) x Shift of auto driver trips to alternate modes (TTC/GO; walking/cycling) x Increased auto occupancy x Shift of trips to other times of the day (either outside the peak hour, or outside the peak period) x Reduced frequency of trip-making (including alternate work arrangements such as telecommuting, conference calling or compressed work week) x Changing origin/destination patterns (increased downtown population and employment enabling increased non-auto commuting; residents move to opposite side of the city to avoid having to commute crosstown). x Discretionary trips just don’t happen (e.g. shopping more locally instead of downtown or crosstown), a particular trip is not worth the effort of traveling through congested area, or trips consolidated to occur less frequently

For each of the categories above, consider a number of questions:

x Do the EMME or PARAMICS models account for this type of shift? ¾ Is the change sufficient or is it possible that the model is understating the magnitude of the change? x Is there evidence of this change already happening? x If not, how likely is it to occur? Is this a reasonable assumption? x What is the potential for growth in behaviour that will reduce vehicular demand? x Would the shift happen organically, or would there need to be specific infrastructure, initiatives and/or policies in order to encourage the shift and reach the desired targets? (What would be required for the assumption to be true or to push the boundaries?) x How to quantify the baseline and the likely maximum shift?

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 7 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x If additional adjustment required, how to accommodate in the model(s)? x Should the adjustment be made globally or targeted to specific links, zones, O/D pairs? Or to one particular classification of trip (e.g., telecommuting only applicable for office work).

3.1 Trip Reassignment

EMME accounts for this in regional trip assignment (macro level) and PARAMICS accounts for this in local trip assignment within the study area (micro level). The results are limited by underlying assumptions and parameters within the models.

Considerations:

The traversal matrices for “maintain” and “remove” indicate EMME is modeling a reduction of 856 trips (1.7% of trips in study area). The majority of the reduction has been at the gateways; the internal study area zones only experienced a reduction of 65 trips. This suggests that most of the modeled change is due to traffic rerouting away from the study area.

In the Gardiner survey, 24% of drivers said that they were likely or somewhat likely to select an alternate route if travel time on the Gardiner / Lake Shore increased. This could be a different route within the study area (as modeled by PARAMICS).

Initial Suggestion: Assume that the models have addressed this measure as much as practical and make no further changes.

Outcome: Assume that the models have addressed this measure as much as practical and make no further changes.

3.2 Mode Shift

The EMME model divides person trips into auto, transit and “other” (walking and cycling) trips based on factors such as travel time, trip purpose, traveler demographics (including auto ownership), and historical traveler attitudes and characteristics. In theory, then, if road capacity is reduced such that auto delays increase substantially, the model should show a shift to transit

Page 8 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013 ridership to the extent that there is an attractive transit alternative available for that particular trip.

Considerations

In the Gardiner survey, 11% said it was likely or somewhat likely that they would respond to increased congestion by switching to GO (5%) or TTC (6%), and 6% said they might switch to walking or cycling.

Downtown-oriented trips:

Already occurring in peak direction for downtown-oriented trips: x auto driver mode typically around 25% for inbound AM peak period trips originating both in 416 and 905 x most of the rest is on TTC (416) or GO (905) x Walking trips mostly internal to PD1 (targeted adjustment) x Cycling trips to PD1 mostly from zones immediately surrounding PD1 (“inner ring”) ¾ During the winter, cycling activity decreases by ~90%. Is increased cycling as a TDM measure contingent on it continuing through the winter? x Auto modal split in 2001 model appears to be somewhat higher than TTS data (37% in model vs. 31% in TTS). Areas not exactly the same (TTS = PD1; EMME = EA study area). If focusing on EA study area, might expect TTS auto modal split to be lower.

Surveyed vs. Modeled Modal Split – AM Peak Period Inbound Trips Driver Passenger TTC GO Walking Cycling Inbound trips to PD1 (2006 TTS) From 416 25% 6% 54% 3% 9% 2% From 905 27% 5% 19% 48% 0% 0% From all GTA 26% 5% 43% 17% 6% 2% Inbound trips to EA study area (2001 and 2031 EMME models) EMME 2001 37% 58% 5% EMME 2031 28% 66% 6% (see also dot density maps)

x Is there any more room for driver % to come down or is it already at its lowest level? x Would it be reasonable to bring auto driver down to say 20%, and distribute the remainder according to external trip end characteristics? (i.e., trips from 905 largely

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 9 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

shifting to GO; trips from 416 shifting to TTC, with additional walking / cycling depending on distance from downtown)

2008 Kings Travel Survey modal split data were compared against 2006 TTS data. The auto modal split is reasonably close (23% KTS; 25% TTS), although there has been a substantial reduction compared to the 2001 KTS (35%). If the model is calibrated to 2001 TTS data, there may be an overstatement of vehicle trips generated in those areas, as well as similar high-density precincts in the downtown area (CityPlace; new waterfront precincts).

Crosstown and counter-peak trips:

Auto mode share is much higher for counter-peak and “through” trips that are not as well served by transit (either for entire trip or at external trip end; e.g., outbound congestion on Gardiner / DVP with increased downtown population commuting to suburban auto-oriented employment areas along 427 and 404)

Opportunities for mode shift may be more limited depending on x Specific o/d pairings x Transit improvements (esp. GO counter-peak service and local service levels at destination end / “last mile”)

Probably not appropriate to apply global reductions – any adjustments should be more targeted to geography, trip purpose, O/D pairings, if possible.

Assessment of opportunities may be more challenging due to more widely dispersed o/d patterns (many-to-many vs. many-to-one).

Opportunities limited to transit (GO and local); travel distances likely too great to accommodate via walking / cycling. Counter-peak trips via GO also limited by GO schedule and by transit availability / attractiveness at the outlying GO station.

Initial suggestion: Review model runs (O/D matrices) to determine if there is any discernible difference in modal split between “retain” and “remove” alternatives. If the shift is commensurate with expectations, accept and take no further action. If not, or if walking and cycling are underrepresented, then further analysis is required and possible post EMME model adjustments to the PARAMICS traversal matrix.

Page 10 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

Outcome:

Post-modelling adjustment is required x EMME model includes a module (known as a logit model) that distributes trips between auto, transit, and other modes (cycling and walking) x Modal assignment relies on: ¾ transit service ¾ travel times for various modes ¾ trip purpose; traveller demographics ¾ historical traveller attitudes and characteristics x Numerous changes to the transportation environment are expected that will make transit and cycling/walking generally more attractive than it has been historically ¾ Policies governing land use patterns (mixed-use developments, smart growth) and site design (transit-oriented design) are promoting developments with higher density, increased proximity of employment and amenities to residents, and more street orientation, particularly in areas well served by high-frequency or higher- order transit ¾ Non-auto modes are being promoted through education programs, implementation of better on-street amenities, better access to transit passes, and tax incentives ¾ Generation Y is personally less inclined to drive than Generation X/Baby Boomers ¾ Integration and cooperation between GTA transit authorities is improving (most relevant for cross-boundary trips, primarily counter-peak direction) x The EMME model will account for some of the factors (such as transit service and facilities), but will not account for all of the factors x GTA transportation planning exercises (Metrolinx Transportation Master Plan) have assumed 2% global reductions post-modelling and an additional 5% reductions post- modelling for trips less than 10 km long for this factor. This factor is GTA wide and it is likely that a higher number is supportable in the study area.

Suggested reduction: x 5-7% reduction in auto trips – shift to transit x Further 5-7% reduction in auto trips for internal trips (under 5 km) – shift to walking and cycling

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 11 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

3.3 Auto Occupancy

Increased auto occupancy and carpooling is frequently identified as a policy goal, with some measures in place to encourage this (e.g. HOV lanes, preferred parking).

Considerations

TTS and cordon count data both indicate a trend toward lower auto occupancy levels. What is the likelihood of this trend being reversed and reversed substantially enough to have a noticeable impact on model results? What specific measures would need to be enacted that are not already in place (since the status quo is resulting in a decrease in auto occupancy)?

Cairns et al indicate that ridesharing is a rare response to capacity reductions. As well, the Gardiner survey indicated that only 5% of respondents were likely or somewhat likely to switch to carpooling in response to increasing congestion in the corridor.

There are some cities with stronger ridesharing (e.g. “slugging” in Washington – certain highways into the city are reserved for HOVs only during rush hour). There are suggestions that carpoolers are taken from transit rather than single-occupant vehicles (or more prevalent where transit options are limited). Suggestion that carpooling incentive is predominantly based on time savings compared to general traffic rather than financial or altruistic incentives (i.e., can I use the HOV lanes to get around congestion in the general traffic lanes).

Initial Suggestion: Increased auto occupancy is not likely without aggressive policy direction and measures to encourage HOVs. This would only be of benefit if new passengers were taken from existing drivers rather than existing transit riders. Suggestion here is to assume existing auto occupancy levels for modeling purposes.

Outcome: x Post-modelling adjustment is not required x TTS and cordon count data both indicate a trend toward lower auto occupancy levels x There are suggestions that carpoolers are taken from transit rather than single-occupant vehicle x Increased auto occupancy and carpooling is frequently identified as a policy goal, with some measures in place to encourage (HOV lanes, preferred parking), but ability to affect auto occupancy globally or within the FGE/LSB corridor is unproven

Page 12 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x GTA transportation planning exercises (Metrolinx TMP) have assumed 4% global reductions post-modelling for this factor. While this suggests there may be some room GTA wide, we will not make adjustment for this to/from the study area.

3.4 Peak Spreading

Potential data sources: x Permanent count station data / cordon count data (for baseline) x TTS data (discretionary vs. work trips) x EMME modeling

Considerations: x How much capacity is available in the shoulders of peak hour? Peak hour volumes on major corridors are experienced for nearly entire duration of AM and PM peak periods (model assumes 3-hour peak periods) x How much capacity is available in the off-peak? (mid-day; mid-evening) x What is the tolerance for users to shift to other times? Already evidence that this is occurring (anecdotal; hourly traffic profiles); is there more willingness to spread trips further? Impact on scheduling (meetings / work), convenience (start or end trip at intolerable time). Shift high-tolerance users first to make room for low-tolerance users x Gardiner survey: 14% of drivers said that it was likely or somewhat likely that they would make the trip at a different time, if congestion increased in the corridor. This was the second highest response (after choosing an alternate route at 24%). x The EMME model includes an auto peak period to peak hour factor of 0.405 and a similar transit factor of 0.55. This suggests there is room to shift within the peak period as a fully balanced peak period factor would be 0.333. x Shifting trips outside the peak period to mid-day or the weekend would be over and above shifts within the peak period

Initial Suggestion: Examine trends and available data and estimate. A global adjustment within PARAMICS is likely required.

Outcome: x Post-modelling adjustment is required x Capacity of the system is a hard cap and will ultimately restrict the volume served in the peak hour

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 13 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x Demand that is above capacity will be forced out of the commuter peak hour into shoulders (i.e., the hours before and after the peak hour) – this despite the fact that the volume served in shoulders is also approaching capacity x If the hours immediately before and after the peak hour are also nearly saturated, there may be some further spreading of demand outside the conventional three-hour peak period x Gardiner survey: 14% of drivers said that it was likely or somewhat likely that they would make the trip at a different time, if congestion increased in the corridor. x GTA transportation planning exercises (Metrolinx TMP) have not included post- modelling reductions for this factor. This may be appropriate across the GTA, but in the capacity constrained downtown shifting is quite likely.

Suggested reduction: x 3-7% reduction in auto trips – global adjustment

3.5 Trip Reassignment

Could encompass two broad categories: x Longer-term changes to population and employment locations and O/D pairings (increased downtown population and employment enabling increased non-auto commuting; residents move to opposite side of the city to avoid having to commute crosstown) x Shorter-term decisions on discretionary trips (e.g., shopping, entertainment) ¾ Trips made to a different generator (e.g. shopping more locally instead of downtown or crosstown) ¾ Trip purpose fulfilled at a different location that eliminates the need to travel through the congested area.

Potential data sources: x Baseline conditions – TTS; Bluetooth; EMME select link analysis x Is this captured in the EMME modeling (i.e., would the person O/D tables be different between “retain” and “remove”)? x Can the EMME model differentiate between work-based trips and other more discretionary trips? EMME model is AM – fewer discretionary trips than during the PM or on weekends. x TTS: number of auto trips to PD1 by type and by PD; number of auto trips by PD1 residents (dot density map) by non-work trip type – AM and overall

Page 14 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x Kings Travel Survey: 11% of AM peak period trips appear to be discretionary (all modes)

Considerations:

Longer-term O/D pattern changes x Would be less feasible for households where there are two people commuting to opposite sides of the city. x Longer-term change – you would keep it in mind as a factor if you were planning to move or take a job, but it is not applicable if you are remaining in your current residence / place of employment for the foreseeable future. In the first instance you can avoid impact if desired, but in the second instance you would be impacted. x The change could start to happen before the capacity reduction takes effect. If the City announced tomorrow that the Gardiner was to be removed, any subsequent decisions by individuals would take those plans into consideration even though the actual road network change would not have occurred yet. x People already choose to live and work in certain places in part because they can travel on the subway or the GO train, or because they can use 400-series highways. x 2008 Kings Travel Survey reveals an increasing trend toward live-work downtown (59% of Kings residents worked in PD1 in 2001, vs. 66% in 2008).

Shorter-term discretionary trip changes x Could have a variety of impacts: ¾ Trips currently made to downtown, instead made to similar facilities outside downtown ¾ Trips currently made from downtown to facilities outside downtown, instead made to more local facilities ¾ Trips currently made to facilities on the opposite side of the city (e.g., east end residents shopping at Sherway Gardens) now made more locally to avoid traveling through downtown ¾ Trip purpose fulfilled electronically (e.g. internet shopping) x Generally easier to make this change because more transient, although some destinations not available elsewhere (e.g. ferry to islands, major attractions etc.)

Initial suggestion: EMME model should capture longer-term O/D changes based on current trip distribution stage in the model (Gravity model). Is it sensitive enough to other trip-making behaviour, or do we need

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 15 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013 to make an adjustment? If we need to adjust, we need to consider how and whether PARAMICS is the best model to do that.

For discretionary trips, assess available information and make an adjustment in PARAMICS. Consider whether this should be targeted to gateway study area zones.

Outcome: x EMME model establishes broad relationships between Origin and Destination pairs and makes broad assignments of trips to corridors based on system performance and travel times x There is some question as to whether or not the EMME model sufficiently accounts for the increasing number of people who both live and work downtown – a relationship that promotes transit, cycling, and walking as preferred modes of travel x It was initially assumed for this exercise that EMME sufficiently accounts for this phenomenon x Subsequent review of EMME output indicates that O/D pairings do not appear to change substantially between 2031 “base” and 2031 “remove” (only the specific route choices between those zones) x If the EMME model does not account for different O/D choices under “remove”, this may be one area where additional reduction above baseline levels can be justified (but would need to be quantified).

Suggested reduction: x 0% reduction in auto trips – under the assumption that this is handled by the EMME model x Additional reduction may be justifiable under “remove”, but we have made mode choice adjustments that may in part offset this.

3.6 Trip Reduction

This covers a situation in which fewer total trips are made within the study area: x Reduced frequency of trip-making (including alternate work arrangements such as telecommuting, conference calling for business travel or compressed work week)

Potential data sources: x TTS data? Probably not. x Other travel surveys? (Smart Commute? VTPI?)

Page 16 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x Census data? x Permanent count station data (day-to-day fluctuation) x Others?

Considerations: x There has been a shift toward increasing telecommuting/teleconferencing with recent technological changes. Is there willingness amongst employers and employees for additional telecommuting or have we reached a threshold? (similar for growth of e- commerce – internet shopping etc.). While some of this has occurred, there is likely room for some more of this. x How much is occurring now? How much more? x 2006 commuter survey: ¾ Of motorists that expressed willingness to switch from auto at least one day a week (unknown %), 44% expressed a willingness to telework at least one day a week. This statistic may not be directly comparable, since it is on an unknown baseline percentage and applies to all commuters living in Toronto (regardless of O/D pairings). ¾ 34% to 45% of respondents (unknown) said that teleworking was “an option” but did not specify how many days per week. x Assume to apply increase (if any) globally to work trips, perhaps limited to certain employment sectors x Would any additional work trip reductions occur uniformly throughout the week or would they be weighted toward Monday/Friday? (reduced benefit if still have to accommodate higher traffic Tues-Thurs) x Would currently unforeseen technological advances make this type of reduction more feasible? (Substantially better than today?) Can we rely on the hope that this type of unknown technological advancement will materialize?

Outcome: x Post-modelling adjustment is required x Home-based work is increasing as a percentage of the employment base x Teleworking is increasing as the supporting infrastructure improves and the proportion of information-based jobs increases x Teleconferencing is an accepted method of business interaction with an increasing trend x E-commerce is increasing in popularity, reducing discretionary shopping trips x E-learning is increasing in popularity, reducing school-related trips x Baby boomers retiring and travelling less as a demographic group

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 17 Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

x GTA transportation planning exercises (Metrolinx TMP, Halton TMP) have assumed between 2.7% and 8% reductions post-modelling for this factor

Suggested reductions: x Trip reduction (trips are reduced due to telework, compressed work week, etc.): ¾ 2-4% reduction in auto trips – global adjustment

3.7 Trip Elimination

“Trip just doesn’t happen” – discretionary trip not worth the effort of traveling through congested area, or trips consolidated to occur less frequently.

Potential data sources: x TTS, EMME model? — discretionary vs. non-discretionary trips x Cairns et al list case studies with a wide range of net traffic impacts, but they predominantly refer to the net trip reduction without categorizing into where (if anywhere) the eliminated trips went. x Some examples: ¾ Embarcadero closure: “42% of drivers found alternate routes within six weeks of the earthquake, remainder reduced discretionary trips or switched to transit)” ¾ Central Freeway closure: “A survey mailed to 8,000 drivers whose license plates had been recorded on the freeway prior to the closure revealed that 66% had shifted to another freeway, 11% used city streets for their entire trips, 2.2% switched to public transit, and 2.8% said they no longer made the trip previously made on the freeway. The survey also found that 19.8% of survey respondents stated they made fewer trips since the freeway closure. Most were discretionary trips, such as for recreation.” x Gardiner survey: 7% of drivers said they would likely not make the trip if congestion increased in the corridor

Initial suggestion: x The data are limited in this category, typically documenting the overall reduction and not how it was accommodated. Often “trips not made” are captured by one of the other categories of trip reduction mentioned above. Some trip elimination of discretionary trips is expected, but it is difficult to quantify.

Page 18 Dillon Consulting Limited Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard EA Estimating Potential for Traffic Reduction Beyond Model Forecasts Internal Working Draft for Discussion September 2013

Suggested reductions: x Trip elimination (trip is completely eliminated): ¾ 1-2% reduction in auto trips – global adjustment

3.8 Summary

The following table summarizes the trip reduction demand adjustments contemplated. It also includes how the change is expected to be accomplished from a modelling perspective.

Recommended Post-EMME Modelling Adjustments to Auto Demand Forecasts Areas for Adjustment to Forecasted Peak Magnitude of Trip Forecasts Hour Auto Trip Generation Adjustment* Requiring Adjustment Trip Reassignment Trip shifts to alternate route, but not within the 0% Handled by EMME model, no additional change FGE/LSB corridor Mode Shift Trip occurs, but not as auto driver x Transit Mode Share increase 5 - 7% Global reduction to Study Area Demand x Cycling and Walking Mode Share 5 - 7% Primarily applied to shorter, internal trips (under 5 increase km) Auto Occupancy 0% No substantive change expected Peak Spreading 3 - 7% Global reduction Trip occurs, but not in peak commuter hour/period Trip Redistribution 0% Handled by EMME model, no additional change Origin and/or destination of trip is changed Trip Reduction Trips are reduced due to telework, teleconferencing, 2 - 4% Global reduction compressed work week, etc. Trip Elimination 1 - 2% Global reduction Trip is completely eliminated Overall 16 - 27% * Note the term “adjustment” in this case refers to reductions to peak hour auto trip generation rate

Dillon Consulting Limited Page 19 Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix E Construction Staging Summary

Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

Introduction

ProjectteamfortheF.G.GardinerExpressway(FGE)andLakeshoreBoulevard(LSB)Reconfiguration EnvironmentalandUrbanStudyforthesectionofthecorridoreastofJarvisAvenuehasidentifiedand consolidatedatotalof4alternativestobebroughtforthtothenextstageofevaluation.

Thesealternativesinclude:

MaintainAlternative –asexhibitedatPIC#2,theMaintainoptionistorepresentthebasecase(2031)or “donothing”alternative,aspresentedbytheCitytoincludefulldeckreplacementandrehabilitationof theGardinerbutdoesnotincludeareͲalignedLSBthroughKeatingforthetimebeing.

ImproveAlternative –Thisincludesthe“ImproveLite”alternativewhichwillinvolvethereplacementof thedeckoftheFGE,similartotheMaintainAlternativebutwithanarrowerdecktocarryonly4lanes generallyinsteadof6,thereplacementofatotalof10supportingbents,aswellassomemodifications tothecurrentlaneconfigurationoftheLSBincludingtheremovalofoneeastboundlanefromJarvisto Bonnycastle,aswellassomenewurbandesignfeaturesalongthemodifiedLSB.

ReplaceAlternative–ThiswillinvolvethereconstructionoftheelevatedFGEatahigherelevationto replacetheexistingagingstructure,andrealignmentoftheLSBunderneath.

RemoveAlternative–ThecorridorwillbeconvertedintoanatͲgrade,8Ͳlaneboulevard.

Inadditiontoprovidingaconceptualrecommendedconstructionstagingplan,thesenotesdiscuss potentialconstructiontrafficmanagementandstagingissuesforeachofthe4mainalternatives identifiedinthisstudy.TheconceptofONEworkableoptionforeachalternativehasbeenpresented. Thefollowingshouldbenoted:

1. Theconceptsoffersomeestimateoflanesavailableateachconstructionstage.These temporarylaneswillbeconnectedtotheroadsystemoutsidethelimitsofthisstudyatvarious locations.Theefficiencyandimpactofthiswillbeevaluatedinsubsequentstudies.

2. ThereareopportunitiestocreateadditionalstagesalongtheElevatedGardiner(FGE) (longitudinalstaging)asthisisaverylongsite(over3km),byisolatingthestructureatsome “onͲ“and“offͲ“ramplocations.Thesecanbefurtherevaluatedwhenmoreinformationare available,e.g.requirementtoreducetrafficimpacts,fundinglimitation,andthelike.This reviewassumesthattheentireworklimitwillbemadeavailableforconstructionallatonce.

3. TheuseofRailwaylandsnexttotheTorontoRailCorridoronthesouthsidehasnotbeen identifiedbasedonMetrolinx’sresponsetotherequestregardingthepossibleuse oftheirlands. Iftheselandsbecomeavailableinthefuture,theycouldprovidetheopportunityforadditional roadcapacityandwillbebeneficialtoallstagingschemes.

MorrisonHershfield 1 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

RemoveAlternative

KeyFeaturesoftheScheme:

1. General

ReferenceshouldbemadetotheconceptlayoutdrawingspreparedfortheRemoveAlternative,the proposednewalignmentofthenewLakeshoreBoulevard,anditseastconnectionwiththe DVP/EastLakeShoreandthewestconnectionwiththeremainingelevatedFGEandatͲgradeLSB.

a. The“RemoveAlternative”willeliminatetheelevatedsectionoftheFGEbetweenDVPand Yonge,includingthehighͲlevelrampsconnectingDVPtoFGE,andwiththeLSBconvertedintoa wide,8Ͳlaneboulevardcarryingalltrafficwithinthecorridor.TheLSBwillberealigned northwardswestoftheDontoCherry,andnecessitatingnewlowlevelcrossings(bothEBand WB)overtheriver.ElsewherethenewLSBwillmoreorlessfollowtheexistingalignmentofLSB.

b. TheNewLSBisexpectedtoprovide4mainlinelanesineachdirection,withatͲgrade intersectionsateachmajorcrossingwitharterialscontrolledbysignals,andancillarylanesand bikelanesprovidedasrequired.

c. NewstructureswillalsoberequiredonthewestlimittobringsomeoftheLSBtrafficbackonto theremainingelevatedportionoftheFGE.Theserampswillgenerallybe2Ͳ3lanestructures rampingupataround4%grade,around200mlong,forbothWBandEBtraffic,primarily betweenYongeandJarvis.Althoughthealignmentoftheserampshaveyettobefinalized, considerationsshouldbegivento:

i. FortheWBonrampontoFGE,utilizetheexistingWBJarvisonͲramppotentiallywideningit toaccommodate2lanes,i.e.the4mainlinelanesonthenewLSBwillbesplitinto2 mainlinelanestocontinueontotheexistingLSB,one“eitheror”lanetoFGEandLSBand oneramplaneontoFGE.FGEwillhave2WBlanesfromherewhichbecome3laneswestof YongewhentheYorkOnͲrampwillbecombined.Thisconfigurationmaychangebasedon recommendationsfromtheLowerYongePrecinctplanningworkthatiscurrentlyongoing.

ii. FortheEBofframp,dependingonthefutureoftheYorkͲBayͲYonge(YBY)offramp,traffic willbeletoffatthisramp,therestofthetrafficwilldescendontothenewLSBviathe existingJarvisofframpwhichcanagainbewidenedtoaccommodate2lanes,andabrand newrampstructuremaynotberequired.Similartotheabove,thisrampwillbeinfluenced bythependingrecommendationsoftheLowerYongePrecinctPlan,wherethecurrentEB JarvisofframpmaybeshortenedtoendatYongeStreetinstead.

MorrisonHershfield 2 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

Neverthelessthefinalconfigurationsoftheserampswouldnotlikelyaffecttheconstruction approachasdescribedinthisdocument.Wherenecessarythisdocumentwillbeupdatedto addressanyresultingimpactwhentheprecinctplanhasbeenfinalized.

d. AllpedestriansidewalksandcrossingsoftheboulevardwillbeatͲgrade.

ConstructabilityreviewandrecommendationforRemoveAlternative:

1. ForthisAlternativetheentireelevatedFGEwillberemoved.Understandablythenumberof lanesintheFGE/LSBcorridorwillbereducedduringconstructionduetotheneedtoprovide sufficientworkingareasforthenewconstructionworks,contractoraccesses,aswellaslaydown areasandprefabricationyards.Additionally,safetyconsiderationswilllikelyprecludethe removalofmajordeckpanelsandsubstructurecomponentsoverlivetrafficorpublic/ inhabitedareasduetothesignificanceofthisoperation,forbothsuperstructureand substructures,andthedanger/hazardentailed.

2. Asdescribedbelow,theteamidentifiedtheopportunitythatremovalcanbestagedtoallow FGEtobepartlyoperationalduringtheremoval,buttherewouldbecostsassociatedwith temporarystrengtheningofthesubstructure(likelybytheuseoftemporaryadditionalcolumns). ThisapproachinvolvingFGEremovalonaperdirectionbasiswhilekeepingonedirectionopen ontheviaduct,hasbeen adoptedinthisstudy.

3. ManagementofTrafficduringconstructionforthisAlternativewouldinvolvethefollowing:

a. UtilizingtheexistingQueensQuay(QQ)betweenYongeandSmallStreet,anew ParliamentSlipencroachment/crossingeastofSmallandanewroadway,whichcanbe usedaspermanentroadinfuturedevelopmentoftheLowerDonarea(whichis assumedtobeavailablefortheconstructionofthisproject)thatcanbereconnected intotheexistingLSBeastofDVP.

(Note:actionforprotectionoftheROWtoallowthistohappenshouldbedoneassoon aspossible).

b. UtilizingCommissionersStreet(Carlaw/Commissioners/Cherry)toBdetourLS traffic aroundtheGardinerEastRampstructuresandtheDonRoadway/LSBIntersectionto facilitatetheconstructionofthismajorintersection.Duetotheconditionandlimited capacityoftheexistingCherryStreetBasculebridge,thisdetourwouldrequireanew4Ͳ lanecrossingoftheKeatingChannelateornearth existingCherryStreetCrossing.This detourwassuccessfullyusedinthe2001GardinerEastDemolitioncontracttoreͲroute LSBtrafficeastandwestoftheDVPduringdemolitionwork.Referenceismadetothe WaterfrontToronto’s“KeatingChannelPrecinctEnvironmentalStudyReport(2010)” whereanewfixedcrossingovertheKeatingChannelisproposedlocatedapproximately

MorrisonHershfield 3 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

50mwestoftheexistingCherryStreetBridge.Thisnewfixedlinkwillcarry4lanesof traffic,2ineachNBandSBdirection,aswellastransit,pedestrianandcyclingfacilities. TheProjectTeamrecognizedthattimelyprovisionofthisstructurewouldfacilitatethe trafficplanningfortheGardinerProject,otherwiseatemporarybaileystructurewould berequiredinplacetocompletetheCommissionersdetourroute.Eitherwaythenew fixedlinkorthetemporarycrossingwillbeconstructedatahigherelevationthanthe existingCherryStreetBasculeBridge,toprovidethenecessaryverticalheadroomfor vesselsthatcontinueoperatinginthearea,suchasthedredgers.

c. Additionalopportunityfordivertingtrafficcanbeprovidedbytemporaryconnecting EsplanadenorthofFGEcorridorwithMillStreetthusallowingvehiclestobypassthe workzoneviaaCherryStreetconnection.Theefficiencyofthisroutehasnotbeenfully evaluated,asthesearenarrowerandbusierstreetsandtheconnectionwillinvolvea numberofleftturningmovements.

d. Additionaltemporary/permanentlanesmaybeproposedorconsideredalongthe southedgeofLSBtoenhancecapacitiesduringconstruction.Forconstructionpurposes, itisassumedthataphysicalseparationof5mbemaintainedbetweentheconstruction zoneandtheoperatinghighways/roads.Amoredetailanalysisofthisopportunitywill becompletedwhensufficientsurveyingandpreliminarydesigndataareavailable.

e. Theremainingopportunitieswillbeprovidedbystagingwithintheworkzonebytaking outlanessequentiallybutwillstillobserveefficiencyandsafetyrequirementasstated above.

4. PotentialStagingAlternative:

a. PreͲWorks(theseworkswillproceedwithnegligibleornoimpactontheFGE/LSBtraffic astheywillbeconstructedawayfromtheworkzone).Thiswillinclude:

i. PreͲstage1:

1. MaximizewidthoftheLSBbetweenYongeandParliamentduring constructionbywideningtothesouth.Duetothefirststageworkon thenorthsideoftheFGE,asdescribedbelow,aswellastheproximity torailwaylands,opportunitytoutilizelandsnorthofthecorridorfor detouringwasassumednotavailable.

2. Widen/Reconstruct /ExtendQueensQuaytoapotential5to6lane arterialtocarrythebulkofthetrafficduringconstructionworks.Thisis akeytemporaryrouteformostofotherAlternativesofthisstudy. Throughthis,abypassroutewillbecreatedthatwillconveytrafficoff

MorrisonHershfield 4 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

thebusyworkzonearea.TheeastendoftheQQextensionwillbe turnednorthwardandconnectedtothenewsectionoftheLSB constructedunderpreͲstage2(below),orsouthwardtoconnecttothe newDonRoadwayinterchangeareaforaccessingtheDVPatcertain constructionstages.

ii. PreͲstage2:ToconstructthesectionofnewwidenedLSBBoulevardeastof Cherryincluding:

1. SectionofthepermanentLSBeastofCherry,includingthenewWBDon RiverCrossing.BothnewDoncrossingshavebeenrealignedandwillbe positionedoutsidetheshadowsoftheexistinggroupofstructuresto allowthemtobepreͲbuilt.Theconstructionofthefirstofthese2 bridges,eachasa2Ͳlanestructure,ispotentiallythemosttime consumingiteminthispreͲworkstageandcanbeseenasastandalone work.Theotherrampstructureisnotconsideredessentialatthistime, butcanbebuiltaswellifsodesired.

2. WiththeimplementationoftheCommissionersDetour,complete temporaryconnectionsbetweentheQQdetourandtheotherdetour routesinpreparationofStage1work.Duringthisstage,thenew intersectionoftheLSBeastandDonRoadway,asewellasth demolition oftheLSBtoFGERampscanbeconstructedfirstasthissectionis primarilylocatedawayfromthebusytraffic.TheNBandSBDon Roadwaytrafficwillhavetobestagedtomaintaincapacityand connections.NotethattheCommissionerdetourmayincludeanew4 lanecrossingoftheKeatingChannelasindicatedabove.

iii. PreͲStage3:TemporarySupportingColumnsforidentifiedFGEbentsin preparationforthestageddemolitionoftheFGE.Notably,forexample,ifthe bentcontainsonly2columns,atemporarycentrecolumnwillberequiredto maintainstabilityof theelevatedFGEwhenhalfofthebent,andonecolumnas wellasthedeck,isbeingremoved.SometrafficrestrictionsonLSBmaybe required.

iv. PreͲStage4:OtherworksthatmayproceedearlyincludetheWBJarvisOnͲ RampWidening,andthereconstructionoftheEBJarvisOffRampasperthe LowerYongePrecinctPlan,whichmaybeabletocarrysometrafficfrom arterialsbackontotheFGEduringstage1ofthework(seebelow).

b. Stage1Work:DemolitionofWBFGE

MorrisonHershfield 5 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

i. AtthistimethepermanentcrossingandpartoftherealignedLSBeastofCherry willbeoperational,aswellasotherdetourroutessuchastheQQextensionand itsconnectiontothenewLSB.Thesedetourswillbeamajorroutetocarrythe WBtrafficduringthefirststageremovaloftheFGE,andaccommodateall connectingtrafficwitharterialsandexistingramptraffic,whichwillnolonger haveaccessontotheWBFGE.Additionallyanyrequiredtemporarysubstructure workwouldhavebeeninplacetosupportpartiallyremovedbridge.Trafficwill reͲaccesstheWBFGEviaonͲrampsatJarvisandYork.

ii. EBFGEwillcontinuetooperatetogetherwiththerampsandtheEͲNDVPramp inplace.HowtheavailablelanesonthestilloperationalEBFGE/LSBcorridor, andthedetourrouteviaQQetc.willbeutilizedandsigned,willhavetobe decidedlaterduringsubsequentdesignstages.

iii. TheNͲWDVPRampandthenorthhalfoftheFGE(WBdirectionlanes)willbe removed.SectionsofLSBdirectlyundertheelevatedFGEherewillbeclosedfor safetyreasons.InconsideringtheimpacttoNͲStraffic(suchasJarvis, Sherburne,ParliamentandCherry),worksattheLSBforconstructionofthenew LSBwillhavetobestagedtomaintainaccessofthesearterialNͲSroadswiththe LSB,withatleastonelaneavailableineachdirection.Demolitionworkwill havetobestagedtooccuratpreͲarrangednightͲtimeorweekendclosureto ensuresafetytothepublicfortheFGEsectionsattheseintersections.

iv. TheWestLimitonrampsatJarvisandYonge,asdiscussedabove,ifnotalready builtasdiscussedinthepreͲstageworks,willbeconstructedalongwithany requiredrampimprovementinteractingwiththeexistingJarvisOnͲRamp. ConstructionoftheseworksisnotexpectedtobeproblematicastheLSBhereis closed.

v. ThenewLSBWBlaneswestofCherrywillbebuiltincludingpartofthe intersectionswithmajorarterials,thuscompletingthenewWBnewLSB.

c. Stage2Work:DemolitionofEBFGE.

i. AtthistimetheWBtrafficwillbeusingtheWBlanesofthenewLSBand connectionsbackontotheFGEorcontinueonLSBWBbeyondYongeasper existing,andwithotherdetourroutesstillfullyoperational.

ii. EBtrafficwillbeledofftheFGEviarampspriortoYongesuchastheYorkͲBayͲ YongeRampandperhapstheJarvisRampdependingonthefinalconfiguration agreed.TrafficwillbeledontotheQQdetour,orotherpotentialroutesas identified.TheLSBdirectlyundertheEBstructurewillbefully closedtotraffic.

MorrisonHershfield 6 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

iii. TheremainingelevatedstructureoftheFGEeastofYongewillbedemolished, alongwiththehighlevelDVPRampconnection.Asthisrampgoesoverlive trafficatsomelocations,thedemolitionmayhavetobecarriedoutduringpreͲ arrangedweekendclosuresoftheentirecorridor.

iv. ThenewEBeRampatth westendwillbebuilt.Asdiscussedabove,thiscanbe combinedwiththeexistingJarvisoffͲrampbyrebuildingthisrampintoa2Ͳ3 lanestructureandbringingFGEtrafficdownontothenewLSBandreconfiguring thesignaledintersectionheretooptimizethecapacityofthenewcorridor,oras ashorterrampendingatYongeaspertheLowerYongePlan.Again,thefuture oftheYBYOffRamphastobeconfirmedinduecourseandisnotpartofthis project.

v. TheLSBEB–NBDVPrampovertheDonwillbecompletedinthisstage,ifnot alreadybuiltinpreviousandpreͲstages.

d. Stage3Work:FinalConfigurationoftheLSB,NewDVPCrossings,andRemovalofthe Detours.

i. AfterthedemolitionworktheremainingportionsofthenewLSBwide boulevardcanbeconstructed,alongwithallurbanfeaturessuchasbikelanes andleisureareas.

ii. Allintersectionswillbefinalized,allsignalsandcrossingcompleted. 

MorrisonHershfield 7 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

ReplaceAlternative

KeyFeaturesofthescheme:

1. General

ThisAlternativewillreplacetheexistingFGEelevatedstructurewithanewmodernstructure betweentheDVPandJarvisStreet.Aswell,theLSBwillbereconstructed.

2. TomakeuseofthisopportunitytoopenuptheWaterfrontareaandmaketheareamoreattractive andlively,thenewstructurewilltowerabovethenewlyrealignedLSBbelowbyplacingthis structureapproximately5mabovetheexistingdeck,i.e.around15maboveLSB.Thiswillallowa brighterandlessenclosedLSBwhichwillbeequippedwithnewerfeaturestoaddresstheurban designcomponentofthisstudy.

(Asper theprojectteam’sdiscussioninlateNovember,thereisapossibilityofraisingthisnew structurebyanother3meterstoallowadditionallaneoftrafficontheexistingFGE,butsincethis optioninvolvesmuchlongerramps(around100madditionallengtheach),thefinaldetailshastobe establishedto ensurethisapproachisfeasible.)

3. Thenewstructurewillgenerallybe2lanesineachWBandEBdirections.Forpracticalreasonsdue tothenewheightoftheelevatedFGW,fewerconnectionsviamuchlongerrampswillbeprovided witharterialsandtheLSB.

4. Asaresultofthis,newstructuralrampswillberequiredasfollows:

x Ontheeastlimit,EBandWBDVPRampsovertheDonRivertoclimbtothenewelevationsof theproposedstructure;

x Alsoontheeastlimit,EBandWBLSBRampstoconnecttotheLSBeastoftheDonRiver;

x WBSherburneOffRampandtheWBYongeOffͲRamp;

x ConsiderationofkeepingtheexistingYorkWBOnͲRampwillbereviewedinsubsequentdesign stagestoconfirmitsfeasibilityandvalidity,similarlyfortheEBJarvisOffͲRamp,toseewhether newrampswillbemoreeconomicalconsideringlifecyclecosts.Referenceisalsomadetothe LowerYongePrecinctPlansanditsdiscussionsregardingtheserampstructures,asmentionedin the“Remove”Alternativeabove;

x AnewEBJarvisOnͲRampwillbeprovided;and

x AttheWestlimitofthenewFGE,2newramps(forbothEBandWBtraffic)willberequiredto bringtheFGEbackdowntojoinwiththeexisting,remainingportionoftheFGEbeforeYonge.

MorrisonHershfield 8 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

5. TheLSBwillalsobereconstructedtoanewalignment,withtheeastendwestoftheDonRiver movednorthwardsandtherestoftheLSBtuckedbelowthenewFGE.ThemedianoftheLSBwill becomethelocationwherethesinglecolumnofthenewFGEwillbellocated.Al otherurbandesign elements/featureswillbeincorporatedintothenewLSB.

6. PreliminaryconsiderationsforthenewbridgecrossͲsectionandaestheticappearance,aswellasthe relativepositionwiththeexistingFGEandLSBhavebeenpreparedconceptually.Itisunderstood thatonesectionmaynotrepresentthe fullpictureofthedimensionalrelationshipbutthiscanonly befinalizedinfuturedesigns.

ThenewelevatedFGEisaround21mintotalwidth,whilethissectionoftheexistingFGEisbetween 27and29m.Atypicalsectionisattachedtothesenotesattheappendices.Astheareawbelo the newFGEcannotaccommodateanytrafficlanes,onlytheoutsideoftheexistingFGEcanbeusedto conveytrafficduringconstructionofthenewbridge,andthisispossiblewithsomeminorwidening oftheexistingFGEbutthisisconsidereddoable.

Constructabilityreviewandrecommendation–ReplaceAlternative:

1. WiththeexistingFGEabletoprovideonlyonesinglelaneduringconstructionineachdirection,itis understoodthatthenumberoflanesintheFGE/LSBcorridorwillbesignificantlyreducedduring constructionandtheabilitytodetourtrafficawayfromthecorridorisakeyelementtomaintain adequateEͲWtrafficacrossthelakeshoreoftheCity.

2. Additionally,itmustbepointedoutthattoconstructa3kmelevatedviaductalargeamountof prefabricatedcomponentsandcomplexmachinerywillbeneededduringtheentireconstruction period.Thismayimply,forprecastworks,alargequantityofprecastgirders,orforincremental launchingorbalancecantileverconstruction,sophisticatedformworkandtravelingsystems.These noteswillonlydealwiththetrafficplanningandconstructionstagingissuesandhavenotlooked intotheavailabilityoflargeprecastingfacilitiesaswellasequipmentstorageandmaintenance locations,whichhavetobeinvestigatedindetailinthefuturedesignstages.

3. Again,safetyconsiderationwillprecludetheremovalofmajordeckpanelsandsubstructure componentsoverlivetrafficorpublic/inhabitedareasduetothesignificanceofthisoperation,for bothsuperstructuresandsubstructures,andthedangerentailed.

4. Asdescribedbelow,theteamfoundthatsomepotentialofstagedconstructiontoallowFGEand LSBpartlyoperationalduringtheremoval,butsomecostsfortemporarywideningwillberequired.

Additionallythereareconcernsof“singlelane”viaductduringemergenciesandinefficiencieswith ramptraffics.Thisisnotevaluatedherebutconsiderationshouldbe madeinfuturedesignstages toseewhethertheselanesshouldbeallowedtooperateduringconstructionstages.

MorrisonHershfield 9 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

5. FortheLSB,atleastonelaneineachdirectionwillbedisabledduringtheconstructionofthepiers forthefutureFGEstructure.

6. SimilartoRemoveAlternative,managementofTrafficunderthisAlternativewillhavetolookinto theopportunitiesprovidedbythefollowing:

a. SimilartotheRemoveAlternatives,utilize existingQQbetweenYongeandSmallStreet, constructanewParliamentSlipcrossingeastofSmallandanewroadwaytotheeast,which canbeusedaspermanentroadinfuturedevelopmentoftheLowerDonarea(whichis assumedtobeavailablefortheconstructionofthisproject)thatcanbereconnectedinto theexistingLSBeastofDVP.

(Note1:actionforprotectionoftheROWtoallowthistohappenshouldbedoneassoonas possible,toensurethedevelopmentshere,ifgoingaheadbeforethisproject,thedetour routeswillstillbeavailable,perhapsasepartofth futuremunicipalroadsystem)

(Note2:asdescribedabove,theCityshouldidentifyasignificantsizeworkshopand precastingareainthevicinityofthesiteforthisAlternativeandhasitprotectedfrom developmentsuntiltheconclusionofthework).

b. AlsotheCommissionersDetourincludinganewortemporary4lanecrossingoftheKeating Channel,insteadofutilizingtheexistingCherryStreetBascule,shouldbeimplementedto leadtrafficawayfromtheGardinerEastandDonRoadwayintersectiontoallowremovalof therampsandupgradingoftheintersectiontobecompletedwithminimaltrafficimpactto theusers.

c. Similarly,additionalopportunityfordivertingtrafficcanbeprovidedbytemporarily connectingtheEsplanadenorthofFGEcorridorwithMillStreetthusallowingvehiclesto bypasstheworkzoneviaaCherryStreetconnection.Theefficiencyofthisroutehasnot beenfullyevaluated,asthesearenarrowerandbusierstreetsandtheconnectionwill involveanumberofleftturningmovements.

d. Theremainingopportunitieswillbeprovidedbystagingwithintheworkzonebytakingout lanessequentiallybutwillstillobserveefficiencyandsafetyrequirementsasstatedabove.

5. PotentialStagingAlternative:

a. PreͲWorks(theseworkswill proceedwithnegligibleornoimpactontheFGE/LSBtraffic astheywillbeconstructedawayfromtheworkzone).Thesewillinclude:

i. PreͲstage1:

MorrisonHershfield 10 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

x MaximizespacefortheLSBbetweenYongetoParliamentforany requirementforlanesonLSBduringconstruction.Duetotheproximityto railwaylands,opportunitytoutilizelandsnorthofthecorridorfordetouring maynotbeavailable.

x Widen/Reconstruct/ExtendQueensQuaytoapotential5 to6lane arterialtocarrythebulkofthetrafficduringconstructionworks.Thisisa keytemporaryrouteformostAlternativesofthisstudy.Throughthis,a bypassroutewillbecreatedthatwillconveytrafficoffthebusyworkzone area.TheeastendoftheQQextensionwillbeturnednorthwardand connectedtothenewsectionoftheLSBconstructedunderpreͲstage2 (below),orsouthwardtoconnecttothenewDonRoadwayinterchange areaforaccessingtheDVPatcertainconstructionstages..

x ModifytheCommissionersStreetandconstructthepermanent/fixedlink crossingoftheKeatingChannel,asdescribedunderthe“Remove” Alternative,tocompletetheCommissionersDetourtofacilitatethe demolitionoftheFGEEastsection.

ii. PreͲstage2:SectionofnewwidenedLSBBoulevardeastofCherryincluding temporaryconnectionswiththeexistingLSBeastofDVPcanbebuiltfirstasthis sectionisprimarilylocatedinvirginground.WorksunderthispreͲstagealsoinclude:

x TwotemporarycrossingovertheDontoallowDVPtraffictoreachthenewLSB astheexistingrampswillbedemolishedandadvanceconstructionofthenew rampsontothehighernewFGEcannotbecompletedastheyoverlappartly withtheexistingramps.Thetightercurveofthesecrossingswillonlypermit trafficatalowerspeedbutisconsideredacceptable.Analternativeexiststo leadalltrafficdownDonRoadwaytoaccessexistingLSB,butthiswouldnotbe abletomeetthedemandandislikelyjamminguptheentirecorridor.

x ThenewLSBherewillbeconnectedtotheQQdetourasmentionedaboveand willbecomeoneofthemajorrelieveforthetrafficduringconstruction.LSBwill continuetooperatewithlimitedcapacityhavingtogiveupatleastonelanefor theconstructionofthenewLSBmedianandsubstructuresofthenewFGE elevatedviaduct.

x TheportionofthenewFGEoutsidetheshadowoftheexistingFGEandthe2 newLSBtoFGErampscanalsobebuiltaslongastheyarenotinterferingwith theexistingtraffic.Thisconnectionmaybecomeimportantduringstage3,

MorrisonHershfield 11 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

whenthe3existingFGEͲDVPrampsarebeingdemolishedandthenewramps beingbuilt.

iii. PreͲStage3willconstructtheDonRoadwayanddemolishtheLSBͲFGErampsusing theCommissionersDetour,asintheRemoveAlternative.

iv. PreͲStage4:LocalwideningoftheFGEbothEBandWBtoprovidesufficientspace topermitonelaneoftrafficineachdirectionontheFGEduringconstructionofthe newbridge,asmentionedabove.Atthistimeitisnotexpectedthatsuchaminor wideningwillentailsubstructurework.

v. PreͲStage4:Otherworksthatmayproceedearly mayincludethemajorintersection attheLSB,andanyotherworkssuchasconnectingroadwaysoutsidetheshadowof theexistingFGE/LSBcorridor.

e. Stage1Work:ConstructionoftheSubstructureofthenewFGE

i. Alldetoursandtemporarycrossingwillhavealreadybeeninplacefortraffic purposes.ThiswillinvolvetheclosingoftheexistingFGEdownto2lanesineach directionbyopeningupthemedianportionoftheentiredeckincludingtheremoval ofthegirderstoallowthenewpiertopunchthrough.Attheeastendduetothe offͲalignmentofthenewandoldFGE,thesituationmaybemorecomplicatedas the2structurescrosseachotherinsteadofoneoverlappingtheother,andhasto bereviewedmorecarefullyduringfuturedesignstages.

ii. Lakeshorewillalsobereducedbyonelaneineachdirectiongenerallydependingon thelocation.Sectionsofeth LSBlocatedoutsidetheshadowoftheFGEwillbeless affected.

f. Stage2Works:ConstructionoftheSuperstructureofthenewFGE

i. TheexistingFGEwillbelimitedtooneoutsidelaneineachdirectioncontinueto operatewhilethebulkofthemiddleportionwillbeclosedeforth constructionof thepiercap,thebearingsandthesuperstructure.Asdiscussedabove,the operationofsinglelanehighwayhastobecarefullyreviewedonsafety(accidents) andoperational(ramps)reasons.Asthenewdeckwillbeanaestheticallypleasing deck,inͲsitu,ormatchͲcastingsegmentalconstructionwilllikelyberequired,and willoccupytheentireareauntilthecompletionofthenewdeckreadyfortraffic.

ii. BothWestconnectingrampswillbeconstructedaspartofthenewviaductasthe lanesarealreadyclosedhere.

MorrisonHershfield 12 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

iii. LSBmaybefullyreopenedatthisstageasperexistingconditiondependingonthe finallayoutoftheLSBmedian.MajorityoftheDVPtrafficwillbeusingtheQQ detourroute.

iv. ThenewonandofframpsforthenewelevatedFGEhastobeconstructedwithdue considerationoftheoutsidelanetrafficontheFGE.Atthistimeitisconsidered feasibletoleaveonespanofeachoftheserampsopentokeeptrafficonthe existingFGEaslongaspossible,andfillinthegapafterthenewFGEtrafficis flowing.

AtthecompletionofStage2thenewFGEdeckshavebeenbuiltfromtheWest connectiontotheLSBontheeast,excepttheconnectionswiththeDVP,hence allowingtraffictouseitduringStages3fortherelieveoftraffic.

g. Stage3Work:ThenewDVPRampsandCompletionoftheOnandOffRamps.

i. TheDVPrampswillbeconstructedwhenthenewFGEhasbeensubstantially completeandreadytoconveytrafficexceptforthenewonandofframpstoDVP. ThisisbecauseduringtheconstructionoftheDVPramps,theentireDVPtoFGE connectionwillbetotallyshutdown.TrafficdownDVPwillbeentirelyrelyingon theQQdetourandthetemporarycrossingsontothepreͲbuiltpartoftheLSB. TrafficonthenewLSBwillbeabletoaccessthenewFGEfromthenewrampsand usetheFGEtorelievethetraffic.

ii. TheexistingDVPrampswillbedemolishedandthenewrampswillbebuiltto connecttothenewFGE(atahigherelevation).Oncetheconnectioniscomplete trafficcanberoutedontothenewFGEalthoughnotalltherampsarefully operational.

iii. Theincompleteonandofframpswillnowbecompletenowthattrafficonthe existingFGEisremoved.

h. Stage4Work:DemolitionoftheexistingFGE.

i. Althoughthismaybeaquickerstage,butasthisinvolvesthedemolitionofboththe superstructureandsubstructureoftheFGE,theentireLSBwillhavetobeclosed, exceptthosesectionsofLSBwhichlieoutsidetheshadowoftheexistingFGEand thosewidenedportionsatthepreͲstagesfordetouringpurposes.

ii. ProtectiontothenewsubstructuresfortheFGEfrombeingdamagedbythe demolitionisakeyrequirementofthisstage.

MorrisonHershfield 13 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

iii. InconsideringtheimpacttoNͲStraffic(suchasJarvis,Sherburne,Parliamentand Cherry),demolitionworkwillhavetobestagedtooccuratpreͲarrangednightͲtime orweekendclosuretoensuresafetytothepublicfortheFGEsectionsatthese intersections.

i. Stage5Works:FinalConfigurationoftheLSB,andRemovaloftheDetours.

i. AfterthedemolitionworktheremainingportionsofthenewLSBcanbeconstructed, alongwithallurbanfeaturessuchasbikelanesandleisureareas.

ii. AllintersectionsatLSBwillbefinalized,includingtheintersectionwithLSBeastof DonandtheDonRoadwayconnection.



MorrisonHershfield 14 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

ImproveAlternative

KeyFeatureofthescheme:

2. General

x ReferenceshallbemadetotheProjectDrawingdepictingtheproposalschemeandnew alignmentsoftheGardiner/Lakeshorecorridor.Thisisa“lite”versionoftheoriginalschemeas providedtotheengineersinamemodatedNovember18,2013.Theworkisverysimilartothe “Maintain”Alternativeasdescribedbelow.SubsequentrevisionstotheImproveAlternative mayincludeotherworkonLSBbuttheseworkisnotexpectedtohavesignificantimpactonthe constructionapproachforthisAlternative.

x ThissectionofelevatedGardiner(FGE)willremainatitslongitudinalandverticalalignmentsbut thenumberoflanesand/orthewidthofthedeckreducedtoanarrowerstructure,butwith propershoulders(medianandcurb).Alllaneswillbetuckedtowardsthenorthsideofthe existingbridge,thusopeningupthesouthsidewithbetterlightontotheLSBbelow.Thiswillbe achievedviaafulldeckreplacementandaswellasremovalofgirdersonthesouthsidethatno longersupportadeck.

x Atotalof10bentswillneedtobereconstructedtoagreewiththeurbandesigndetailsbelow thedeckonLSB.

x TheexistingLSBwillbe modifiedincludingtheremovalofoneEBlanefromJarvistoBonnycastle. ThereareotherpotentialopportunitiesheretoreconfiguretheLSB,butsinceitdoesnotaffect overalltrafficplanning,itwillnotbediscussedindetailinthissection.

x FGERamps,includingtheDVPrampswhicharereͲdeckedin1993,willgenerallyremainthe same,or,somecanberemovedifdesired,particularlythosethatarecurrentlycarryingverylow trafficvolume.Againastherampremovalwillunlikelyaffecttheoveralltrafficplanningofthe corridor,itwillnotbediscussedhereindetails.

Constructabilityreviewand recommendationforImproveAlternative:

1. ManagementofTrafficunderthisAlternativewillbesimilartoaMaintainAlternative,whenthe deckwillbereplacedinfull.ThemajordifferenceisthatfortheImproveAlternative,during stage2ofthework,onlypartoftheremoveddeckwillbereinstatedopeningupthemedianas peretheabov discussions.Atanyonetime,2laneswillbeprovidedduringconstruction,and2 laneswillbeprovidedattheultimatebridgeconfiguration.

2. PotentialStagingAlternative:

MorrisonHershfield 15 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

a. PreͲWorks(theseworkswillproceedwithnegligibleornoimpactontheFGE/LSBtraffic astheywillbeconstructedawayfromtheworkzone).Forthisalternative,thiswill includethepreͲconstructionofallreplacementbentsasidentifiedwhichneedtobe reconstructed.

b. Stage1Work:ConstructionoftheMedianlanes

i. Atthisstage,alltrafficwillberoutedtotheoutside,2laneswillbeprovidedat eachdirection,whilethemedianlaneswillbebuilt.

ii. ToallowtheramptrafficandconnectiontotheFGEEast(ofDon),2subͲstages willberequiredtomanagetrafficbetweenCherryandLeslie,namelyStages1A and1B.

iii. Rampswillremainopenunderthisstage.

c. Stage2ReconstructionoftheOutsideLanes:

i. Trafficwillnowbeusingthenewlyconstructedmedianlanes.Duetotheneed tostagetraffic,provideworkzoneoverlapsandTCB’slanewidthsprovidedmay beslightlysubstandardbutisacceptable.

ii. Allrampswillbeclosedatthisstage.

iii. Theoutsidedecks(originalWBdirection,onthenorthside)willbereplaced,to completethedeck,whilethedeckandgirdersonthesouthsidenolonger requiredwillberemovedandtheremainingnewdeckconstructedatStage2 willbeconfiguredwiththeStage1decktoprovideproperlaneandshoulder widthsforthepermanentlayout.

iv. SimilartoStage2,2subͲstages,2Aand2B,willberequiredtomanagethe traffictoandfromDVPandthesplitelevationsofthedeckeastofCherry.

d. .Stage3Work:MiscellaneousWorks.

i. ThiswillincludetheLSBupgradeifnecessary,toaccommodatethenew intersections,substructurerepairs,andthelike.



MorrisonHershfield 16 Gardiner/LakeshoreReconfigurationEAandUrbanStudy ConstructabilityReview

RevisedJanuary8,2014

MaintainAlternative

KeyFeaturesofthescheme:

1. General

x TheMaintainAlternativeistocontinuetheCity’splanstorehabilitatetheFGEusing conventionalmethodology.CurrentlytheCityhasadoptedtheuseoffulldeckreplacement, withdueconsiderationofreplacingthegirderifafasterschedulecanbeaccomplishedinthis manner.

x AnyimprovementtoLSBwillbeextratothisAlternativeandwillnotbereviewed.

ConstructabilityreviewandrecommendationforMaintainAlternative:

StagingAlternative:2stageofconstructionwillbeadoptedalsoinconsiderationoftheoperationofthe DVPramps,LSBisnotaffected.Duetothefactthatthefulldeckwillbereinstated,itisconsidered bettertostartwiththeworkontheoutsidelanesfirst,ascomparedwiththeImproveAlternative.

1. Stage1Work:OutsideLanes,maintaining2lanesoftrafficineachdirection,Rampclosed, Stages1Aand1BfordeckworkeastofCherry.

2. Stage2Work:MedianLanes,alsomaintaining2lanesoftrafficineachdirection,Ramps reopened,Stages2Aand2BfordeckworkeastofCherry.

MorrisonHershfield 17 























Sketches





MorrisonHershfield 18 ZĞŵŽǀĞ 

WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚt ŽŶZŝǀĞƌƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ>͘^͘͘ ZĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨt :ĂƌǀŝƐKŶͲZĂŵƉ;KƉƚŝŽŶĂůͿ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ

dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ>^ YƵĞĞŶ͛ƐYƵĂLJLJƉĂƐƐ

ĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ&'ĂƐƚŽĨsWΘ  ZĞĐŽŶĨŝŐ͘ŽĨŽŶZŽĂĚǁĂLJͬ>^ /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ;dƌĂĨĨŝĐ^ƚĂŐĞĚͿ

<ĞĂƚŝŶŐ&ŝdžĞĚƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ;ϰůĂŶĞƐͿ

ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐĞƚŽƵƌ

WƌĞͲtŽƌŬ

ϮϬϭϰͲϬϭͲϬϵ  ƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϭʹWĂŐĞϭ  ZĞŵŽǀĞ  tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ WƌĞͲ ƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ>ŽŶ ƐƚĂŐĞ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ ĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ

Ϯ

ϰ Ϯ &͘'͘͘t  ϰ

ϯ ϯ&'

ϯ>^ Ϯ  Ϯ EĞǁƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϰ Ϯ

^ƚĂŐĞϭ

tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ Ϯ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ Ϯ ƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚt>ŽŶ

ϰ

ϰ

ϭ &͘'͘͘

Ϯ  Ϯ EĞǁƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϰ

^ƚĂŐĞϮ ^ƚĂŐĞϯ͗ŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨ>^ĂŶĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨĚĞƚŽƵƌŶŽƚƐŚŽǁŶ ϮϬϭϰͲϬϭͲϬϵ  ƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϭʹWĂŐĞϮ ZĞƉůĂĐĞ  tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ WƌĞͲ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ Ϯ ƐƚĂŐĞ

EĞǁ>^ Ϯ&' Ϯ>^  ϰ Ϯ ϰ

Ϯ&' ϯ

Ϯ>^ Ϯ  Ϯ ϯ ϯ EĞǁƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ

^ƚĂŐĞϭ;WŝĞƌͿ

tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ

ϭ&' ϯ>^  ϰ ϰ

ϭ&' ϯ>^ Ϯ  Ϯ

ϯ ϯ EĞǁƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ

ϮϬϭϰͲϬϭͲϬϵ ^ƚĂŐĞϮ;ĞĐŬͿ  ƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϭʹWĂŐĞϯ ZĞƉůĂĐĞ 

 tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ Ϯ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŶĞǁsWZĂŵƉ

EĞǁ>^

ϰ

Ϯ&'  ϰ Ϯ&'

Ϯ Ϯ  EĞǁƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϯ ϯ

^ƚĂŐĞϯ;sWZĂŵƉĂŶĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͿ

^ƚĂŐĞϯ;sWZĂŵƉĂŶĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͿ ^ƚĂŐĞϭ;WŝĞƌͿ ^ƚĂŐĞϮ;ĞĐŬͿ

ϮϬϭϰͲϬϭͲϬϵ  ƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϭʹWĂŐĞϰ DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶͬ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞ  tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ

Ϯ&' ϯ>^ 

Ϯ&' ϯ>^

^ƚĂŐĞϭ

tĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚ ĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚ η EŽ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ZĞŵŽǀĂů WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ

Ϯ&' ϯ>^ 

Ϯ&' ϯ>^

ϮϬϭϰͲϬϭͲϬϵ ^ƚĂŐĞϮ  ƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϭʹWĂŐĞϱ Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix F Air Quality Assessment Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Reconfiguration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ...... 1 2.1 Study Area And Receptors...... 2 2.2 Receptors ...... 3 3 BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY ...... 3 4 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 5 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...... 10 6 LOCAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...... 12 7 GHG EMISSION ASSESSMENT ...... 20 8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Background Concentrations for AQIA ...... 4 Table 2: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for NOx...... 6

Table 3: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for PM2.5 ...... 7 Table 4: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for VOCs ...... 8

Table 5: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for CO2e ...... 9 Table 6: Re-entrained Road Dust Emission Factors ...... 10 Table 7: Estimated Annual Emissions and Burden Analysis ...... 12 Table 8: Evaluation Matrix Based on Regional Air Quality Assessment ...... 12 Table 9: Evaluation Matrix Based on Local Air Quality Assessment ...... 17 Table 10: Estimated Total GHG Emissions for All Four Alternatives ...... 21 Table 11: Evaluation Matrix Based on GHG Emissions ...... 21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Terms of Reference Study Areas for GELBR ...... 2 Figure 2: Wind Rose at Toronto Island Airport (2008 – 2012)……..………...………………………….14 Figure 3: Wind Rose at Toronto Island Airport (2012) ...... 15 Figure 4: Isopleth Plot of Predicted Maximum Concentrations for the Improve Alternative ...... 16 Figure 5: Predicted 1-Hour Percentile Concentrations…………………………….……………………18 Figure 6: Predicted 24-Hour Percentile Concentrations ...... 19

Dillon Consulting Limited i Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration

1 INTRODUCTION On November 30, 2009, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approved the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment (EA) that was submitted jointly by Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto. The approved ToR includes a high-level work plan for the Air Quality component of the EA (i.e., the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA)). As a part of the AQIA, Dillon established the background ambient air quality levels for use in the EA, using an approach and data sources approved by the MOE.

The air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impact assessment followed the methodologies described within the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s document “Environmental Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation Projects” (January 2012) [the Guide]. The assessment includes a regional air quality and GHG emissions impact evaluation based on a burden analysis, and a local air quality impact evaluation using atmospheric dispersion modelling. This document describes how the four alternative solutions (Maintain, Improve, Replace and Remove) were evaluated.

2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The alternative solutions evaluated were Maintain, Improve, Replace and Remove as described below.

Maintain –the Maintain alternative represents the future base case (2031) or “do nothing” alternative. As this is a 2031 base case, the alternative also includes: [1] Full deck replacement and rehabilitation of the Gardiner as per the City’s current rehab plans. [2] Build out of the current approved development applications within the study area (as per City’s planning information), and the build out of West Don Lands, East Bayfront and Lower Don Lands as per the current precinct plans. [3] The realignment of Lake Shore Boulevard (LSB) between the Don River and Cherry Street as per the Keating Precinct Plan.

Improve – the Improve alternative is to improve the Gardiner and Lake Shore Blvd between Lower Jarvis Street and approximately Leslie Street and includes: [1] Rehabilitate the Gardiner and reduce the deck to 4 lanes. [2] Reduce LSB by taking out the southern eastbound lane east of Lower Jarvis Street. [3] Reconfigure intersections to simplify road geometry and connections to and from Gardiner ramps [4] Assume realignment of LSB between Don River and Cheery Street as per the Keating Plan.

Replace – the Replace alternative defines a scenario whereby the Gardiner between Yonge Street and DVP is replaced with another elevated expressway. This alternative includes: [1] Elevate the Gardiner by 5 m from Lower Jarvis to the DVP. [2] Shift Gardiner between Don River and Cherry Street to the realigned LSB as per the Keating Precinct Plan. Dillon Consulting Limited 1

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration

[3] Build a transitional section between Yonge Street and Jarvis Street.

Remove – the Remove alternative incorporates the removal of the Gardiner between lower Jarvis Street and the DVP and expands the LSB to 4-lanes in both directions.

2.1 STUDY AREA AND RECEPTORS Two study areas have been specified in the EA ToR, as shown in Figure 1:

x Environment and Urban Design Study Area – including lands south of King Street to the waterfront, and from Lower Jarvis Street to Logan Avenue. x Transportation System Study Area – including lands extending from Dundas Street to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

The section of the Gardiner and LSB that has been examined for reconfiguration is approximately 2.4 km and extends from just west of Lower Jarvis Street to just east of the DVP at Logan Avenue. Figure 1: Terms of Reference Study Areas for GELBR

Dillon Consulting Limited 2

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

As described above, this assessment includes a regional air quality and GHG emissions impact assessment, and a local air quality impact assessment. In order to maintain consistency with the ToR study areas and to allow for consideration of the unique features of AQIA the study areas that have been identified for the AQIA include:

[1] Regional Study Area (RSA): for the regional air quality assessment and GHG emissions impact evaluation. [2] Local Study Area (LSA): for the local air quality evaluation.

The RSA is defined as the Transportation System Study Area which are the lands extending from Dundas Street to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

The LSA is designated as the study area bounded by King Street in the north, the lakefront in the south, Spadina Avenue in the west and Woodbine Avenue in the east.

Traffic data from the Expressway, arterial roads and collector roads have been included in the AQIA and so these roads have been defined within the RSA and LSA.

2.2 RECEPTORS Receptors need to be defined for the local air quality assessment. The Guide recommends that the local air quality impacts be studied within a distance of 500 m from the transportation facility, in each direction and at both sensitive (residences) and critical receptors (hospitals, retirement homes, childcare centers, etc.). For this evaluation, the receptors include:

[1] Uniform Cartesian receptor grid with 100-m spacing within LSA at a default height of 1.8 m above ground, with receptors on railways and water removed; [2] Critical receptors at a default height of 1.8 m above ground, identified based on current land use as provided by the City; [3] Elevated receptors at heights of 1.8, 6 and 10 m above ground on both sides of the Gardiner with a spacing of 20 m between Yonge Street and DVP and 50 m between Yonge Street and Spadina Avenue.

Vehicular emissions are typically emitted close to ground level and modeling of transportation corridors generally yields maximum concentrations at ground level. However, some of the existing Gardiner sections are elevated. Therefore elevated receptors were also placed on both sides of the Gardiner. As the CAL3QHC/CAL3QHCR model allows the maximum release height of 10 m, the elevated receptors were placed at 10 m above the ground.

3 BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY The Contaminants of Concern (COCs) evaluated in the air quality component of this assessment are listed below and were identified in consultation with the MOE (Dillon technical memo dated August 22nd, 2013). Table 1 identifies the background concentrations used for each COC in the air quality component of this assessment.

x Carbon monoxide (CO); x Nitrogen oxides (NOX (focus on NO and NO2));

Dillon Consulting Limited 3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

x Total suspended particulate (TSP); x Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <10μm (PM10); x Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5μm (PM2.5); x Benzene; x 1,3-Butadiene; x Formaldehyde; x Acetaldehyde; x Acrolein; and, x Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). As shown in Table 1, all of the background concentrations at both 70th percentile and 90th percentile were below their respective criteria except Benzene and BaP. For Benzene, the 90th percentile annual concentration was 153% of its criterion. The 90th percentile concentrations for BaP were 186% and 800% of its corresponding 24-hour and annual criteria. Therefore, Benzene and BaP are the two limiting factors to be considered in the evaluation.

Table 1: Background Concentrations for AQIA

70th 90th Averaging Pollutant Data Period Percentile Percentile Criteria (μg/m³) Period (μg/m³) (μg/m³)

Canada-Wide Standard; PM 24-hour 2010-2012 7 12 30 2.5 Ontario AAQC

PM10 24-hour 2010-2012 12 21 50 Ontario AAQC 24-hour 2010-2012 32 43 200 Ontario AAQC NO2 1-hour 2010-2012 32 51 400 Ontario AAQC 8-hour 2008-2010 259 356 15700 Ontario AAQC CO 1-hour 2008-2010 252 366 36200 Ontario AAQC Annual 2009-2012 0.69 0.69 0.45 Ontario AAQC Benzene 24-hour 2009-2012 0.80 1.08 2.3 Ontario AAQC 24-hour 2008-2010 0.04 0.07 0.4 Ontario AAQC Acrolein 1-hour 2008-2010 0.10 0.18 4.5 Ontario AAQC Annual 2009-2012 0.07 0.07 2 Ontario AAQC 1,3 Butadiene 24-hour 2009-2012 0.08 0.12 10 Ontario AAQC Formaldehyde 24-hour 2008-2010 1.46 2.51 65 Ontario AAQC 24-hour 2008-2010 3.48 5.12 500 Ontario AAQC Acetaldehyde ½ hour 2008-2010 10.31 15.16 500 Ontario AAQC Annual 2008-2010 0.000088 0.000089 0.00001 Ontario AAQC BaP 24-hour 2008-2010 0.000093 0.000153 0.00005 Ontario AAQC

Dillon Consulting Limited 4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

4 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT The air quality and GHG emissions assessments require that emissions (mass per unit of distance or time) of the COCs mentioned above as well as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) be estimated. Emissions are typically estimated by multiplying established emission factors by corresponding vehicle fleet size and kilometers of distanced travelled or idling durations. The most common emission factor model for mobile source emissions is the US EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 model. This model predicts fleet-average emission factors. For this assessment, the Canadian version of the MOBILE 6.2 model (MOBILE6.2C, Version 6.2.3), which integrates the unique Canadian climate and fuel compositions, has be used.

Inputs and assumptions used within the MOBILE6.2C model followed the methodology recommended within the Guide and included use of: x the month of July for the evaluation; x diurnal patterns in temperature and relative humidity that were derived using measured data at Environment Canada’s Toronto Island Airport station from 2008 – 2012 as inputs to MOBILE6.2C; x the default vehicle characteristics (age distribution, annual mileage accumulation rates, and diesel fractions for the 16 vehicle classes) built into MOBILE6.2C; x vehicle miles travelled (VMT) fractions by vehicle class that are derived from the field vehicle counts; x VMT fractions by hour that are created based on the diurnal pattern in traffic volumes field counts; x Ontario’s drive clean program limit for the sulphur content of diesel of 15 ppm( note, the emission reductions due to Ontario’s Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program have not been considered and this represents conservatism within the assessment); x the road types: Freeway, Ramp and Arterial to simulate the average speeds that were used; and x fuel composition and properties that are representative of those used in Ontario.

As all traffic volumes for the four alternative solutions are projected to 2031, the emissions were estimated for 2031. The emission factors used were calculated by MOBILE6.2C for NOx, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOCs, a surrogate of air toxics) and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The MOBILE6.2C output emission factors are shown in Tables 2 – 5.

In addition to exhaust, tire wear, brake and evaporative emissions, the re-entrainment of road dust is considered as a particulate matter emission source from vehicles travelling over a paved road. Emissions resulting from travel on paved roads were quantified using the US EPA AP-42 data (Chapter 13.2.1), as shown in Table 9. This is the recommended method within the Guide for the prediction of road dust emissions.

The emission factors for BaP specific to the Great Lakes Region, derived by the Great Lakes Commission for on-road vehicles are expressed as a fraction of particulate matter (PM) emissions from various types of vehicles including: LDGV, HDGV, LDGT, motorcycle, LDDV, LDDT and HDDV. Therefore, as a conservative assumption, PM2.5 was used a surrogate to represent BaP in the evaluation.

Dillon Consulting Limited 5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 2: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for NOx

Speed Road Type (mph) 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Ramp 24-Hour 0.557 0.487 0.398 0.342 0.314 0.297 0.285 0.281 0.285 0.292 0.299 0.308 0.319 0.333 -- Arterial AM Peak 0.561 0.490 0.400 0.344 0.316 0.298 0.287 0.282 0.286 0.293 0.300 0.309 0.320 0.332 -- PM Peak 0.562 0.490 0.400 0.344 0.315 0.298 0.287 0.282 0.286 0.292 0.299 0.308 0.318 0.330 -- Arterial 24-Hour 0.551 0.482 0.394 0.339 0.311 0.294 0.283 0.279 0.283 0.289 0.297 0.306 0.317 0.330 -- with AM Peak 0.554 0.484 0.396 0.341 0.313 0.296 0.284 0.280 0.284 0.291 0.298 0.307 0.318 0.331 -- Streetcars PM Peak 0.554 0.484 0.395 0.340 0.312 0.295 0.284 0.279 0.283 0.289 0.296 0.305 0.314 0.326 -- Freeway 24-Hour 0.558 0.488 0.352 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.284 0.283 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.314 0.327 0.343 0.329 with Ramps AM Peak 0.560 0.490 0.353 0.286 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.314 0.326 0.342 0.329 Combined PM Peak 0.558 0.488 0.349 0.282 0.283 0.283 0.283 0.282 0.287 0.293 0.301 0.310 0.321 0.334 0.329 Freeway 24-Hour 0.558 0.489 0.352 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.284 0.283 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.314 0.327 0.343 0.329 with Ramps AM Peak 0.542 0.491 0.353 0.286 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.314 0.326 0.343 0.330 Inbound PM Peak 0.559 0.489 0.349 0.282 0.283 0.283 0.283 0.282 0.287 0.293 0.301 0.310 0.321 0.334 0.329 Freeway 24-Hour 0.557 0.488 0.352 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.284 0.283 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.313 0.327 0.343 0.328 with Ramps AM Peak 0.559 0.490 0.352 0.285 0.285 0.284 0.284 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.314 0.326 0.342 0.330 Outbound PM Peak 0.558 0.488 0.349 0.282 0.282 0.283 0.283 0.282 0.286 0.293 0.300 0.310 0.321 0.334 24-Hour 0.568 0.498 0.408 0.351 0.321 0.304 0.292 0.288 0.292 0.300 0.309 0.321 0.336 0.355 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.564 0.494 0.404 0.348 0.319 0.301 0.290 0.286 0.290 0.297 0.318 0.306 0.332 0.350 -- Combined PM Peak 0.565 0.494 0.403 0.347 0.318 0.300 0.289 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.302 0.312 0.323 0.337 -- 24-Hour 0.568 0.498 0.407 0.351 0.321 0.303 0.292 0.288 0.292 0.299 0.309 0.320 0.335 0.355 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.563 0.493 0.404 0.348 0.319 0.301 0.290 0.286 0.290 0.297 0.306 0.318 0.332 0.350 -- Eastbound PM Peak 0.564 0.493 0.403 0.347 0.318 0.300 0.288 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.302 0.312 0.323 0.337 -- 24-Hour 0.569 0.499 0.408 0.352 0.322 0.304 0.292 0.288 0.292 0.300 0.309 0.321 0.336 0.355 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.565 0.495 0.405 0.349 0.319 0.302 0.290 0.286 0.290 0.298 0.306 0.318 0.332 0.350 -- Westbound PM Peak 0.566 0.495 0.404 0.347 0.318 0.300 0.289 0.284 0.288 0.295 0.303 0.312 0.323 0.337 --

Dillon Consulting Limited 6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 3: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for PM2.5

Speed Road Type (mph) 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Ramp 24-Hour 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- Arterial AM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- Arterial 24-Hour 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- with AM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- Streetcars PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- Freeway 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 with Ramps AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 Combined PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 Freeway 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 with Ramps AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 Inbound PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 Freeway 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 with Ramps AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 Outbound PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Combined PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Eastbound PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 -- 24-Hour 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 -- Westbound PM Peak 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 --

Dillon Consulting Limited 7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 4: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for VOCs

Speed Road Type (mph) 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Ramp 24-Hour 2.939 1.186 0.677 0.522 0.427 0.388 0.363 0.344 0.332 0.322 0.314 0.012 0.302 0.298 -- Arterial AM Peak 2.956 1.191 0.679 0.524 0.429 0.389 0.365 0.346 0.334 0.325 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 -- PM Peak 2.969 1.194 0.680 0.525 0.429 0.390 0.366 0.347 0.335 0.326 0.317 0.012 0.305 0.301 -- Arterial 24-Hour 2.934 1.184 0.676 0.522 0.427 0.387 0.362 0.343 0.331 0.321 0.313 0.012 0.301 0.297 -- with AM Peak 2.943 1.187 0.677 0.523 0.428 0.388 0.363 0.344 0.332 0.323 0.314 0.012 0.302 0.298 -- Streetcars PM Peak 2.967 1.194 0.680 0.524 0.429 0.390 0.365 0.346 0.335 0.325 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 -- Freeway 24-Hour 2.888 1.174 0.648 0.489 0.411 0.381 0.360 0.342 0.330 0.320 0.311 0.013 0.299 0.296 -- with Ramps AM Peak 2.899 1.177 0.649 0.490 0.412 0.382 0.361 0.343 0.331 0.321 0.312 0.013 0.300 0.297 0.364 Combined PM Peak 2.936 1.186 0.651 0.491 0.414 0.384 0.364 0.345 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 0.368 Freeway 24-Hour 2.889 1.174 0.648 0.489 0.412 0.381 0.360 0.342 0.330 0.320 0.311 0.013 0.299 0.296 0.364 with Ramps AM Peak 2.695 1.177 0.649 0.490 0.412 0.382 0.361 0.343 0.331 0.321 0.312 0.013 0.300 0.297 0.365 Inbound PM Peak 2.937 1.187 0.651 0.491 0.414 0.384 0.364 0.345 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 0.368 Freeway 24-Hour 2.887 1.173 0.648 0.489 0.411 0.381 0.360 0.342 0.330 0.320 0.311 0.013 0.299 0.296 0.364 with Ramps AM Peak 2.897 1.176 0.649 0.490 0.412 0.382 0.361 0.343 0.331 0.321 0.312 0.013 0.300 0.297 0.297 Outbound PM Peak 2.935 1.186 0.651 0.491 0.414 0.384 0.364 0.345 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 0.368 24-Hour 2.865 1.169 0.673 0.520 0.425 0.385 0.359 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.013 0.297 0.293 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 2.874 1.171 0.673 0.520 0.425 0.385 0.360 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.302 0.013 0.297 0.294 -- Combined PM Peak 2.946 1.190 0.680 0.524 0.429 0.390 0.365 0.346 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 -- 24-Hour 2.862 1.168 0.672 0.519 0.425 0.385 0.359 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.013 0.297 0.293 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 2.871 1.170 0.673 0.520 0.425 0.385 0.360 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.013 0.297 0.294 -- Eastbound PM Peak 2.943 1.189 0.679 0.524 0.429 0.390 0.365 0.346 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 -- 24-Hour 2.869 1.171 0.673 0.520 0.425 0.385 0.360 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.013 0.297 0.293 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 2.878 1.173 0.674 0.520 0.425 0.385 0.360 0.340 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.013 0.297 0.294 -- Westbound PM Peak 2.950 1.191 0.680 0.525 0.429 0.390 0.365 0.346 0.334 0.324 0.316 0.012 0.304 0.300 --

Dillon Consulting Limited 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 5: 2031 Emission Factors (g/mile) for CO2e

Speed Road Type (mph) 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Ramp 24-Hour 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 524.8 -- Arterial AM Peak 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 518.0 -- PM Peak 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 512.4 -- Arterial 24-Hour 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 523.8 -- with AM Peak 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 519.9 -- Streetcars PM Peak 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 507.8 -- Freeway 24-Hour 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 with Ramps AM Peak 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 Combined PM Peak 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 Freeway 24-Hour 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 with Ramps AM Peak 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 Inbound PM Peak 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 Freeway 24-Hour 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 542.2 with Ramps AM Peak 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 537.0 Outbound PM Peak 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 519.2 24-Hour 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 -- Combined PM Peak 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 -- 24-Hour 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 -- Eastbound PM Peak 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 -- 24-Hour 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 562.8 -- Lakeshore AM Peak 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 556.7 -- Westbound PM Peak 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 522.0 --

Dillon Consulting Limited 9 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 6: Re-entrained Road Dust Emission Factors

Road Type PM2.5 Emission Factor (g/mile) Gardiner/DVP/ Ramps 0.02030 Lakeshore 0.02232 Arterial 0.01788

5 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT Regional air quality is commonly described in terms of the concentrations of air pollutants that are important at a regional scale. Current knowledge on health and environmental effects clearly identifies ground level ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as the two pollutants of greatest regional importance. They are the major constituents of smog and are produced by numerous complex physical and chemical processes that usually take place over a large geographic area. Ground level O3 and most PM2.5 are secondary pollutants that are produced by precursors such as NOx, CO and VOCs.

There are various approaches to assess the impact of a project on regional air quality ranging from advanced (data intensive) modelling techniques to a qualitative discussion. Two common approaches referenced in the Guide are an empirical source-receptor model and regional air pollution burden analysis.

The empirical source-receptor model postulates a linear relationship between relative changes in concentrations and emissions of primary pollutants. However, the relationships for PM2.5 and O3, which are the major elements/drivers for regional air quality, are non-linear and highly variable. Thus, this empirical source-receptor approach is not relevant for broad assimilation and routine application.

The regional air pollution burden analysis entails a quantitative assessment of the net increase or decrease in pollutant emissions attributable to the project and the net effect of the project on regional emissions of relevant primary pollutants. The burden analysis is the preferred approach in many air quality impact assessments to look at the regional air quality implications of individual projects and has be used in this assessment. The burden analysis is also the recommended approach for assessment of regional air quality impacts within the Guide.

Within a burden analysis, the vehicular emissions are typically calculated for both the free flow and idling conditions. For this evaluation, emissions were calculated based on the average travelling speed (free flow and idling) of vehicles within each road segment (link). The emission rate for each link was calculated as:

௚ ௚ ௩௘௛௜௖௟௘ ܧܴܨ ቀ ቁൌܧܨܨቀ ቁܸܲܪቀ ቁܦሺ݈݉݅݁ݏሻ (1) ௛௥ ௩௘௛௜௖௟௘௠௜௟௘ ௛௥ where ERF: Emission rate in g/hr; EFF: Composite emission factor in g/vehicle/mile; VPH: Traffic volume in vehicle/hr D: Length of the road in miles. Dillon Consulting Limited 10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Hourly emissions of each contaminant for each link were calculated using Equation (1). The regional hourly emissions for each contaminant were estimated by summing the emissions associated with all links within the RSA.

The daily emissions of each contaminant were calculated using a conservative assumption that AM peak emissions occur for 24 hours during a day.

The annual emissions of each contaminant were estimated by multiplying the conservatively estimated daily emissions by 365 days. Table 7 shows the estimated annual emissions for NOx, PM2.5 and VOCs.

The annual emissions of NOx, PM2.5 and VOCs for the four alternatives were then divided by their total Ontario emissions in 2011 (i.e., the percent of the 2011 Ontario emissions) to represent the burden.

To evaluate the four alternatives within the burden analysis, three ranking schemes were used:

[1] Total annual emissions – the alternative with the lowest annual emissions is the most preferred (highest ranking). As indicated in Table 7, the Remove alternative is the most preferred and Maintain is the least preferred in terms of both NOx and PM2.5 emissions. However, the Maintain alternative is the most preferred in terms of VOCs emissions. [2] Burden analysis – the lowest burden represents the least contribution to the regional emissions. The Remove alternative is the most preferred in terms of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. The Improve and Maintain alternatives are the most preferred in terms of VOC emissions. [3] Burden weighted ranking –total annual emissions ranking is weighted by the burden to combined all three contaminants together (i.e., the highest value is the most preferred). This allows for consideration of the fact that individual contaminants may have different significance within the burden analysis (e.g., VOCs have a higher predicted burden and may therefore be considered to be more important than PM2.5 and NOx as indicator compounds). As shown in Table 7, the Remove alternative (0.008) is the most preferred while the Replace alternative (0.006) is the least preferred.

Based on the above three schemes it can be concluded that the Remove alternative is most preferred and Replace is marginally the least preferred, as shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Dillon Consulting Limited 11 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 7: Estimated Annual Emissions and Burden Analysis

Estimated Annual Emissions Notes

Scenario NOx (t/yr) VOCs (t/yr) PM2.5 (t/yr)

Maintain 336 420.5 32.5 (AM Peak x 24 hours) x Improve 315 436.5 29.9 365 days /year Replace 313 456.7 29.0

Remove 300 453.4 27.4

2011 Ontario 353300 402600 60300 Ranking Based on Emission Levels Notes

Scenario NOx VOCs PM2.5 Maintain 1 4 1 Higher rank = Improve 2 3 2 more preferred Replace 3 1 3 Remove 4 2 4 Burden Notes

Scenario NOx VOCs PM2.5 Total Maintain 0.0951% 0.1044% 0.0539% 0.2535% Lower % of Ontario Improve 0.0891% 0.1084% 0.0497% 0.2472% total is preferred Replace 0.0886% 0.1134% 0.0480% 0.2500% Remove 0.0848% 0.1126% 0.0454% 0.2429% Burden Weighted Ranking(Ranking Based on Emissions x Burden) Notes

Scenario NOx VOCs PM2.5 Total Maintain 0.10% 0.42% 0.05% 0.0057 Higher number = more Improve 0.18% 0.33% 0.10% 0.0060 preferred Replace 0.27% 0.11% 0.14% 0.0052 Remove 0.34% 0.23% 0.18% 0.0075

Table 8: Evaluation Matrix Based on Regional Air Quality Assessment

Scenario Evaluation Matrix for Regional Air Quality Maintain Moderately Preferred Improve Moderately Preferred Replace Less Preferred Remove Preferred

6 LOCAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT As described in Appendix 3 of the Guide, the local air quality assessment can be carried out by using either a credible worst-case analysis or a comprehensive analysis. The credible worst-case analysis is based on the concept that a project is acceptable under all conditions if it is accepted under a credible worst-case condition.

Dillon Consulting Limited 12 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Further, the credible worst-case condition assumes that the weekday morning or afternoon traffic conditions occur all the time under an unfavorable dispersion condition (i.e., wind speed at 1 m/s; wind direction at 5 degree off the mainline highway axis, to the right or to the left off the axis; stability class of D for urban regions). This type of analysis is likely to reflect an overly conservative prediction of potential impacts.

The comprehensive analysis addresses the variability of traffic and meteorological conditions from hour to hour, thus representing a more realistic prediction of potential impacts.

The US EPA CAL3QHC and CAL3QHCR models are widely used to predict the maximum air quality concentrations at receptors from transportation projects like GELBR. These two models are also recommended by the MTO in its Guide. CAL3QHC is most suited to predict concentrations for a single set of meteorological conditions. Hence, it is the preferred model for the credible worst-case analysis. CAL3QHCR, on the other hand, can process 1-year of meteorological data in a single model run. This makes it most suited for the full-year comprehensive analysis.

Within the LSA, over 1400 links have to be included for the assessment while the CAL3QHC model allows a maximum of 600 links. Therefore, the CAL3QHCR model, which allows simulating up to 5000 links, was used in this evaluation

The meteorological data from the Environment Canada Toronto Island Airport meteorological station was provided by the MOE for use in the study. Figure 2 shows the wind rose for the period 2008 – 2012 and Figure 4 shows the wind rose during 2012. The two wind roses are very similar, demonstrating that conditions in 2012 were representative of the 5 year period of 2008 to 2012. Therefore, the CAL3QHCR model was run using the 2012 meteorological data.

Figure 4 is an isopleth plot of maximum concentrations predicted for one alternative. The maximum concentrations occur along the Gardiner Expressway and DVP and dissipate very quickly with distance away from these expressways.

Dillon Consulting Limited 13 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Figure 2: Wind Rose at Toronto Island Airport (2008 – 2012)

NORTH

15%

12%

9%

6%

3% WEST EA ST

WIND SPEED (m/s)

>= 11.1 10.0 - 11.1 5.7 - 10.0 SOUTH 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 - 3.6 1.0 - 2.1 0.3 - 1.0 Calms: 0.00%

Dillon Consulting Limited 14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Figure 3: Wind Rose at Toronto Island Airport (2012)

NORTH

15%

12%

9%

6%

3% WEST EA ST

WIND SPEED (m/s)

>= 11.1 10.0 - 11.1 5.7 - 10.0 SOUTH 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 - 3.6 1.0 - 2.1 0.3 - 1.0 Calms: 0.00%

Dillon Consulting Limited 15 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Figure 4: Isopleth Plot of Predicted Maximum Concentrations for the Improve Alternative

Dillon Consulting Limited 16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

In order to evaluate the alternatives with regards to local air quality, the distributions of the predicted air quality concentrations (i.e., the maximum predicted concentrations, 90th percentile, 80th percentile) were developed.

Figures 5 and 6 show the predicted concentration distributions for three contaminants using the AM peak traffic data, for 1-hour and 24-hour averaging periods, respectively.

Related to local air quality, the more preferable alternatives are the ones that yield lower concentration distributions. As can be seen in Figure 5 and 6, the Remove and Replace alternatives can be identified as the most preferred while the Maintain alternative is the least preferred, for NOx and PM2.5 concentrations. For VOCs concentrations the Replace alternative is the most preferred.

As discussed in Section 4, the primary drivers for characterizing local air quality are Benzene and BaP which can be represented by VOCs and PM2.5, respectively. With no significant difference in VOC profiles for the 4 alternatives and more clear differences in profiles for PM2.5, the Remove alternative emerges as the preferred and the Maintain alternative is considered to be less preferred.

Table 9: Evaluation Matrix Based on Local Air Quality Assessment

Scenario Evaluation Matrix for Local Air Quality Maintain Less Preferred Improve Moderately Preferred Replace Preferred Remove Preferred

Dillon Consulting Limited 17 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Figure 5: Predicted 1-Hour Percentile Concentrations

140.0 Maintain AM 120.0 Improve AM g/m3) μ 100.0 Replace AM 80.0 Remove AM 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Hourly NOxHourly Concentration (

Percentile

14.0 12.0 Maintain AM Improve AM 10.0 Replace AM 8.0 Remove AM g/m3)

μ 6.0 ( 4.0 2.0 Hourly PM2.5Hourly Concentration 0.0

Percentile

200.0 180.0 Maintain AM

g/m3) 160.0 Improve AM μ 140.0 Replace AM 120.0 100.0 Remove AM 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Hourly VOCHourly Concentration (

Percentile

Dillon Consulting Limited 18 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Figure 6: Predicted 24-Hour Percentile Concentrations

50.0 Maintain AM 45.0 Improve AM g/m3) 40.0 μ 35.0 Replace AM 30.0 Remove AM 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Daily NOxDaily Concentration (

Percentile

5.0 4.5 Maintain AM

g/m3) 4.0

μ Improve AM 3.5 Replace AM 3.0 2.5 Remove AM 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Daily PM2.5 Concentration PM2.5 ( Daily

Percentile

80.0 70.0 Maintain AM g/m3)

μ 60.0 Improve AM 50.0 Replace AM 40.0 Remove AM 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Daily VOCConcentrationDaily (

Percentile

Dillon Consulting Limited 19 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

7 GHG EMISSION ASSESSMENT Transportation sources produces almost one-third of Ontario’s total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions – over 170 Mt in 2011 and growing by about 1.2% per annum1. Approximately three-quarters of this amount is attributable to road transportation. The principal transportation related GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2). Other important GHGs include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The relative impacts of various GHGs are often expressed in terms of their global warming potential (GWP) relative to CO2. GWP represents a basis for combining the emissions of individual greenhouse gases by normalizing individual mass emission rates, based on the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO2 over a specified time horizon.

GHG emissions were developed for changing levels of vehicle traffic associated with each of the alternatives, in accordance with the Guide. Based on the Guide, the following steps were taken to determine GHG emission levels:

1) Calculate the CO2e emission factors (expressed as grams per vehicle miles travelled) for different type of vehicles for each alternative (i.e., maintain, improve, replace and remove) using the MOBILE6.2C model. 2) Quantify the hourly GHG emissions within the transportation system study area (Dundas St, to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Ave to Woodbine Ave) by multiplying the emission factors by the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for each alternative. The hourly GHG emissions are then scaled up to daily and annual emissions by using the same approaches as described for the regional air quality assessment. 3) Compare the total annual GHG emissions among the four scenarios and benchmark them against the total Ontario GHG emissions in 2011. The results are expressed as the GHG emissions change.

The GHG assessment allows for a comparison of GHG emissions associated with traffic volumes for each of the 4 alternatives. From a broader perspective, there may be GHG benefits (reductions) accrued from instances where transportation system modelling has assumed that vehicles on the road will be replaced with users opting for public transit (modal shift). Such changes will enhance the apparent GHG reduction of alternatives that reduce traffic volumes. Therefore, the analysis presented would be considered conservative.

Table 10 lists the total GHG emissions and changes with respect to the total Ontario emissions in 2011. It should be noted that the estimated annual GHG emissions, as shown in Table 10, are very conservative due to the conservative assumptions made in this evaluation. However, the conservative assumptions made here should not skew the evaluation as they have been applied equally to all four alternatives.

Based on the emissions presented in Table 10, the Remove alternative is the most preferred alternative and Maintain is the least preferred alternative.

1 Ministry of Transportation, 2012, Environmental Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation Projects. Dillon Consulting Limited 20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Table 10: Estimated Total GHG Emissions for All Four Alternatives

Estimated Annual CO e Emissions Scenario 2 Notes (t/yr) Maintain 501742 Improve 484412 (AM Peak x 24 hours) x Replace 480022 365 days /year Remove 409719 2011 Ontario 170600000 GHG Changes in 2011 Ontario Scenario Notes Emission Maintain 0.29% Improve 0.28% Lower number is better Replace 0.28% (preferred) Remove 0.24%

Table 11: Evaluation Matrix Based on GHG Emissions

Scenario Evaluation Matrix for GHG Emissions Maintain Less Preferred Improve Moderately Preferred Replace Moderately Preferred Remove Preferred

8 CONCLUSIONS The alternative solutions assessed have been performed using a regional air quality burden analysis, a local air quality assessment and a GHG emissions according to the Guide. The MOBILE6.2C model was used to determine site-specific mobile vehicle emission factors. Re- entrained particulate emissions were quantified according to US EPA AP-42, Section 13.2.1, 2011. The US EPA’s CAL3QHCR model was used to predict the maximum concentrations of NOx, PM2.5 and VOCs (as a surrogate for air toxics) at all receptors.

Based on the regional air quality burden analysis, local air quality impact assessment and GHG emissions evaluation matrix, the results consistently indicate that the Remove alternative is preferred whereas the Improve and Replace can be considered as moderately preferred, and the Maintain as less preferred.

Dillon Consulting Limited 21 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Study Lens/ Criteria Criteria Measures MAINTAIN IMPROVE REPLACE REMOVE Group x Extent of change in Less Moderately Moderately Preferred regional air Preferred Preferred Preferred Social, quality Health (Air Health, x Extent of Quality )& Recreation change in Less Moderately Moderately Climate Preferred and local air Preferred Preferred Preferred Change Businesses quality x Level of Less Moderately Moderately GHG Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Emissions

These preference rankings reflect the Remove alternative’s greater reduction in vehicle miles travelled in comparison to the other alternatives.

Limitations within this evaluation process that should be noted include: x All links have been treated as free flow links with average traveling speeds. No queue links and signalization have been considered due to the complexity of such modeling and the timeline available to conduct the assessment. x MOBILE6.2C produces fleet averaged emission rates typically in grams per vehicle-mile even though the vehicles travelling on the roadways are at different average speeds, e.g., predicts almost constant emission factors for both PM2.5 and CO2e. The model does not have the capability to produce emission factors varying by vehicular modal activities such as acceleration, deceleration, idle and cruise, at higher temporal resolution, particularly under congested conditions. x CAL3QHCR only allows the release height to be 10 m or below while the Replace alternative would elevate the Gardiner by another 5 m which could not be accounted for. x All the emissions quantified and maximum concentrations predicted for averaging periods of more than 1 hour are very conservative.

Dillon Consulting Limited 22 Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix G Noise Assessment Summary

Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Preliminary Noise Report – February 2014

I. Background and Objectives

Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) was retained to assess the traffic noise impacts of four alternative solutions for the GELBR. The project is subject to a Class Environmental Assessment under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is categorized as a Group B project by the Ministry of Transportation Ontario’s (MTO’s) document entitled: “Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities” (July, 2000).

The primary objective of this preliminary traffic noise impact assessment study is to determine and compare the traffic noise impact for each of the proposed alternatives through traffic noise prediction modeling. Once a preferred alternative is selected, a more detailed noise assessment will be undertaken which will includes assessment and feasibility study of noise mitigation measures, if required.

The assessment described herein follows the methodologies described within the MTO’s document “Environmental Guide for Noise” (V3, June 2009) [the Guide] for Group ‘B’ projects.

II. Approach

The traffic noise impact assessment follows the requirements for noise assessment and mitigation relating to the expansion / modification of existing Provincial Highways as outlined in the Guide. Some of the key components of this assessment include:

x Identify study area/area of investigation; x Identify Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs); x Determine future ambient and future noise levels with undertaking; x Identify impacts and significance; x Consider mitigation; and, x Document the noise impact assessment in a Noise Report.

As mentioned above, the identification of impact and significance as well as mitigation measures will be completed for the preferred alternative at a later stage of the assessment.

III. Alternative Solutions

The proposed alternative solutions evaluated include Replace, Remove, Maintain, and Improve as described below.

Maintain –the Maintain alternative is to represent the base case (2031) or “do nothing” alternative. As this is a 2031 base case, the alternative also includes: (a) Full deck replacement and rehabilitation of the Gardiner as per the City’s current rehab plans. (b) Build out of the current approved development applications within the study area (as per City’s planning information), and the build out of West Don Lands, East Bayfront, and Lower Don Lands as per the current precinct plans. (c) The assumed realignment of LSB between the Don River and Cherry Street as per the Keating Precinct Plan.

Improve – the Improve alternative is to improve the Gardiner between lower Jarvis and DVP and includes: (a) Maintain the same number of ramps. (b) Reduce the number of lanes for Gardiner between lower Jarvis and DVP. (c) Reduce the number of lanes for LSB between Cherry Street and Don Roadway. (d) Realignment of LSB between Don River and Cherry Street as per the Keating Plan.

Replace – the Replace alternative is to replace the Gardiner between Yonge Street and Don Valley Parkway (DVP) and includes: (a) Elevate the Gardiner by 5 m from Lower Jarvis to DVP. (b) Shift Gardiner between Don River and Cherry Street to the realigned Lake Shore Boulevard (LSB) as per the Keating Precinct Plan. (c) Build the transitional section between Yonge Street and Jarvis Street.

Remove – the Remove alternative removes the Gardiner between lower Jarvis Street and DVP and expands the LSB to four lanes in both directions.

IV. Study Areas

The section of the Gardiner and LSB that has been examined for reconfiguration extends 2.4 km from approximately lower Jarvis Street to east of the DVP at Logan Avenue. Two study areas have been specified in the EA ToR, as shown in Figure 1:

x Environment and Urban Design Study Area – including lands south of King Street to the waterfront, and from approximately Lower Jarvis Street to approximately Leslie Street. x Transportation System Study Area – including lands extending from Dundas Street to Lake Ontario and from Spadina Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

For the traffic noise assessment, receptors were identified in the area bound by Dundas St. to the north, Commissioner St. to the south, Yonge St. to the west and Carlaw Avenue to the east.

Figure 1: Study Area

V. Noise Prediction Methodologies

Noise prediction calculations were undertaken using applicable MTO guidelines (the Guide). As per the Guide, there are two noise prediction methodologies approved by the MOE and MTO. The first methodology is referred to as the Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method (ORNAMENT) and the second methodology is referred to as STAMINA 2.0. The ORNAMENT methodology is recommended when the topography is not complex and the noise level increases are expected to be less than 5 dBA. This methodology is implemented through STAMSON, a DOS-based computer program.

STAMINA 2.0 is a computer program that is based on the United States Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Noise Prediction Model. It uses more complex calculations and requires more detailed input data in comparison to STAMSON. The STAMINA 2.0 methodology is recommended when the noise level increases are expected to be greater than 5 dBA and mitigation is probable.

The ORNAMENT methodology was selected for this assessment, as it was anticipated that the noise level increases as a result of the four alternative solutions would be less than 5 dBA in the majority of cases.

VI. Receptors

For this comparative study, the study area (as described above) was divided into segments based on change in traffic related parameters, including traffic volumes, posted speed limit and percentage of medium and heavy trucks. Based on the review of the traffic related parameters, each segment consisted of a stretch of road between two consecutive intersections. It was conservatively assumed that a noise sensitive receptor (herein referred to as a ‘node’) exists in all the segments within the study area. For at grade road segments, the receptor heights were determined based on the review of the potential receptor locations. This included receptor heights of 1.5m and 4.5m above grade, for receptors at ground level and second storey, respectively. The height of 4.5m represents receptors at the plain of second storey window. For elevated roadways (e.g., Gardiner Expressway), a receptor height resulting in maximum noise impact was selected for the modelling.

In many instances, the setback distances from the centre of the roadways to receptors were less than the minimum limit of the STAMSON noise model (i.e., 15m). As such, for those receptors a setback distance of 15m was assumed.

Future potential receptors were also included in the analysis. The locations, heights and setback distances of those receptors were estimated from the proposed development plans, including the ones for Keating Precincts, West Donlands and East Bayfront.

For some of the nodes, more than one segment of road contributed to the overall noise levels. This was mainly the case for receptors in close vicinity of the Gardiner Expressway, where up to four (4) segments were included: Gardiner Eastbound, Gardiner Westbound, Lakeshore Eastbound and Lakeshore Westbound.

For the road segments that the traffic volumes were less than the STAMSON’s lower limit of 40 vehicles per hour, the traffic noise contributions to the receptor noise levels were assumed to be negligible.

VII. Discussion of Results

Predicted traffic noise levels, presented in hourly sound level equivalent values (1-hour Leq, dBA) are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. Figure 2 allows for a comparison of traffic noise levels at each node for the four alternative solutions. The locations of nodes and receptors are marked in the .kmz file included, which can be opened with Google Earth. An overall view of the aerial photograph for the study area and the selected nodes is included in Figure 3.

The results indicate that the noticeable differences in the predicted noise levels are mainly for the receptors in close proximity to the Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard (receptors are identified as R1 to R11 in Table 1, below). The results of the noise analysis are as flows:

x Maintain results in the highest noise impact for the identified receptors; x Predicted noise levels for the Replace and Improve alternatives are similar and are predicted to be less than Maintain; and x Remove results in the lowest noise impact.

Table 1 – Comparative Traffic Noise Impact Analysis - Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard Reconfiguration

Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

2 Adelaide St from Church St to Jarvis St 68.32 68.12 68.07 68.25

Adelaide St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne 3 68.70 68.59 68.54 68.73 St

Adelaide St from Parliament St to Cherry 4 69.01 69.79 70.43 68.88 St

Adelaide St from Parliament St to St. 5 69.01 69.79 70.43 66.17 Lawrence St

Adelaide St from Sherbourne St to 6 68.70 68.57 68.72 68.73 Parliament St

7 Adelaide St from Yonge St to Church St 66.61 66.36 66.27 66.40

Bayview Ave from Broadview Ave to 8 66.72 65.01 65.34 65.26 Boulton Ave

9 Bayview Ave from Front St to Queen St 63.60 63.26 63.17 63.25

Bouchette St from Commissioners St to 10 61.74 59.64 59.36 59.48 Villiers St

11 Boulton Ave from Queen St to Dundas St 63.05 63.10 62.74 62.71 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Broadview Ave from Eastern Ave to 12 63.58 63.46 63.36 63.35 Queen St

Broadview Ave from Queen St to Dundas 13 61.54 61.27 61.54 61.45 St

Carlaw Ave from Commissioners St to 14 63.39 61.73 63.07 63.71 Villiers St

15 Carlaw Ave from Eastern Ave to Queen St 63.54 63.52 63.76 63.60

Carlaw Ave from Lakeshore to Eastern 16 64.08 64.57 64.13 64.31 Ave

17 Carlaw Ave from Queen St to Dundas St 63.40 63.15 63.43 63.43

Cherry St from Commissioners St to 18 63.02 62.19 62.49 62.21 Villiers St

19 Cherry St from Eastern Ave to King St 61.26 61.18 61.26 61.26

20 Cherry St from Front St to Eastern Ave 61.86 61.50 61.82 61.03

21 Cherry St from Gardiner to Mill St 62.74 64.13 62.46 62.01

22 Cherry St from Mill St to Front St 61.70 61.44 60.80 60.40

23 Cherry St from Villiers St to Queens Quay 65.15 64.82 65.14 64.79 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Church St from Adelaide St to Richmond 24 66.43 66.26 66.23 66.31 St

25 Church St from Front St to King St 65.75 65.59 65.58 65.76

26 Church St from King St to Adelaide St 65.97 65.87 65.75 65.88

27 Church St from Queen St to Shuter St 66.05 65.88 36.96 66.00

28 Church St from Richmond St to Queen St 66.44 66.30 66.27 66.32

29 Church St from Shuter St to Dundas St 66.16 65.95 66.14 66.07

30 Church St from The Esplanade to Front St 61.55 60.88 60.69 61.08

Commissioners St from Bouchette St to 31 62.87 61.28 61.80 62.79 Carlaw Ave

Commissioners St from Cherry St to Don 32 62.68 61.82 61.18 61.12 Roadway

Commissioners St from Don Roadway to 33 64.26 63.53 62.77 62.01 Bouchette St

Don Roadway from Commissioners St to 34 63.93 64.09 64.33 64.05 Villiers St

Don Roadway from Villiers St to Lake 35 64.47 64.93 65.20 65.04 Shore Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Don Valley Parkway from Broadview Ave 36 75.17 74.52 75.67 75.30 to Boulton Ave

Don Valley Parkway from DVP Ramps to 37 74.41 73.42 75.65 75.04 Eastern Ave

Don Valley Parkway from Eastern Ave to 38 75.42 74.62 76.38 75.88 Queen St

Don Valley Parkway from Gardiner to DVP See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 39 ramp - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Dundas St from Boulton Ave to Carlaw 40 67.24 67.20 67.03 67.01 Ave

Dundas St from Broadview Ave to 41 67.20 67.10 66.72 66.78 Boulton Ave

42 Dundas St from Church St to Jarvis St 65.03 65.93 65.87 65.92

Dundas St from DVP ramp to Broadview 43 67.37 67.31 66.84 66.91 Ave

44 Dundas St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne St 65.07 65.02 64.58 64.66

45 Dundas St from Logan Ave to Carlaw Ave 67.60 67.51 67.43 67.42

Dundas St from Parliament St to Sumach 46 64.92 65.06 64.40 64.51 St

47 Dundas St from River St to DVP Ramp 66.57 66.67 66.15 66.19 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Dundas St from Sherbourne St to 48 64.85 64.84 64.28 64.39 Parliament St

Dundas St from Shuter St(Sumach St) to 49 65.30 65.43 64.83 64.89 River St

50 Dundas St from Yonge St to Church St 65.64 65.43 65.44 65.54

Eastern Ave from Boulton Ave to Carlaw 51 69.37 69.65 68.73 68.81 Ave

Eastern Ave from Broadview Ave to 52 69.38 69.76 68.98 69.00 Boulton Ave

53 Eastern Ave from Cherry St to DVP Ramps 72.64 71.01 70.50 65.68

Eastern Ave from DVP ramps to 54 67.06 67.21 66.86 66.96 Broadview Ave

Eastern Ave from Stl Lawrence St to DVP 55 72.64 71.01 70.50 70.57 Ramps

56 Eastern Ave from Trinity St to Cherry St 67.04 66.90 66.61 66.82

57 Front St from Cherry St to Bayview Ave 63.07 62.74 62.77 62.91

58 Front St from Church St to Jarvis St 67.71 68.48 67.73 67.65

59 Front St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne St 68.15 68.05 68.31 67.95 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

60 Front St from Parliament St to Trinity St 67.99 71.01 70.50 67.82

Front St from Sherbourne St to 61 68.07 67.96 68.17 68.07 Parliament St

62 Front St from Trinity St to Front St 61.73 62.08 62.11 61.63

63 Front St from Yonge St to Church St 67.32 67.45 67.28 67.88

Gardiner Expressway from Cherry St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 64 DVP ramps - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Gardiner Expressway from Jarvis St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 65 Sherbourne St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Gardiner Expressway from Parliament St See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 66 to Cherry St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Gardiner Expressway from Sherbourne St See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 67 to Parliament St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Gardiner Expressway from Yonge St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 68 Jarvis St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

69 Jarvis St from Adelaide St to Richmond St 67.46 67.47 67.88 67.37

70 Jarvis St from Front St to King St 66.49 66.74 67.23 66.51

71 Jarvis St from Queen St to Shuter St 67.43 67.23 67.66 67.31 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

72 Jarvis St from Richmond St to Queen St 67.73 67.58 68.01 67.65

73 Jarvis St from Shuter St to Dundas St 67.26 67.10 67.42 67.26

74 King St from Church St to Jarvis St 64.79 64.61 64.79 64.87

75 King St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne St 64.62 64.40 64.58 64.69

76 King St from Parliament St to Sumach St 63.27 63.55 63.37 62.75

77 King St from River St to Queen St 64.08 64.15 63.81 63.22

King St from Sherbourne St to Parliament 78 63.28 63.65 62.94 63.08 St

79 King St from Shuter St to River St 64.35 64.27 64.62 64.22

80 King St from Yonge St to Church St 64.72 64.42 64.77 64.74

Lake Shore Blvd from Bouchette St to 81 69.27 71.48 70.36 70.14 Carlaw Ave

Lake Shore Blvd from Cherry St to Don See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 82 Roadway - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Lake Shore Blvd from Don Roadway to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 83 Bouchette St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Lake Shore Blvd from Jarvis St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 84 Sherbourne St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Lake Shore Blvd from Parliament St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 85 Cherry St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

Lake Shore Blvd from Sherbourne St to See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 86 Parliament St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 See Results for R1 87 Lake Shore Blvd from Yonge St to Jarvis St - R11 - R11 - R11 - R11

88 Logan Ave from Queen St to Dundas St 58.18 57.90 58.04 58.07

Lower Jarvis St from Adelaide St to 89 67.46 67.47 67.88 67.37 Richmond St

Lower Jarvis St from Gardiner to The 90 67.84 67.55 69.23 67.74 Esplanade

91 Lower Jarvis St from King St to Adelaide St 65.99 66.14 66.77 65.97

Lower Jarvis St from Queens Quay to 92 64.19 62.85 62.32 63.41 Gardiner

Lower Jarvis St from The Esplanade to 93 67.13 66.99 68.03 67.05 Front St

Lower Sherbourne St from Gardiner to 94 64.87 65.23 65.07 63.29 The Esplanade

Lower Sherbourne St from Queens Quay 95 65.30 62.29 60.99 60.38 to Gardiner Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Lower Sherbourne St from The Esplanade 96 64.90 65.11 65.02 64.39 to Front St

Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 97 Mill St from Cherry St to Bayview Ave VPH VPH VPH VPH

98 Mill St from Parliament St to Cherry St 61.07 60.35 61.15 61.20

Parliament St from Adelaide St to 99 65.21 65.06 65.28 65.17 Richmond St

100 Parliament St from Front St to King St 65.43 65.23 65.37 65.32

101 Parliament St from Gardiner to Mill St 65.48 64.78 65.74 65.60

102 Parliament St from King St to Adelaide St 65.04 64.88 65.16 65.02

103 Parliament St from Mill St to Front St 65.28 64.63 65.56 65.78

104 Parliament St from Queen St to Shuter St 63.88 63.41 63.70 63.66

Parliament St from Richmond St to Queen 105 64.77 64.25 64.95 64.81 St

106 Parliament St from Shuter St to Dundas St 63.17 62.90 63.13 63.11

107 Queen St from Boulton Ave to Carlaw Ave 64.48 64.64 63.36 63.53 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Queen St from Broadview Ave to Boulton 108 65.59 65.59 64.83 64.79 Ave

109 Queen St from Church St to Jarvis St 64.10 63.95 63.89 64.12

Queen St from DVP ramp to Broadview 110 65.65 65.74 64.90 64.88 Ave

111 Queen St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne St 64.26 64.16 63.91 64.09

112 Queen St from King St to DVP Ramp 65.60 65.83 65.07 64.86

113 Queen St from Logan Ave to Carlaw Ave 64.48 64.64 63.27 63.54

Queen St from Parliament St to Sumach 114 62.81 62.89 62.12 62.38 St

115 Queen St from River St to King St 64.08 64.15 63.81 63.22

Queen St from Sherbourne St to 116 63.66 63.68 63.29 63.48 Parliament St

117 Queen St from Shuter St to River St 63.47 63.65 62.77 62.89

118 Queen St from Yonge St to Church St 64.62 64.42 64.67 64.76

Queens Quay E from Jarvis St to 119 68.09 67.12 67.21 66.93 Sherbourne St Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

Queens Quay E from Sherbourne St to 120 65.27 65.18 64.52 64.71 Parliament St

121 Queens Quay E from Young St to Jarvis St 69.01 68.99 68.44 68.44

Queens Quay from Queens Quay to Cannot be Cannot be Cannot be Cannot be 122 Gardiner Modelled Modelled Modelled Modelled

Richmond St W from Church St to Jarvis 123 69.01 68.80 68.97 69.13 St

Richmond St W from Jarvis St to 124 68.53 68.35 68.60 68.67 Sherbourne St

Richmond St W from Sherbourne St to 125 68.71 68.61 68.54 68.70 Parliament St

Richmond St W from Yonge St to Church 126 67.31 67.19 67.20 67.42 St

127 River St from Queen St to Shuter St 58.23 57.98 57.63 57.72

128 River St from Shuter St to Dundas St 61.79 61.83 61.63 61.65

Sherbourne St from Adelaide St to 129 65.43 65.37 65.37 65.30 Richmond St

130 Sherbourne St from Front St to King St 64.75 65.01 64.82 64.64

131 Sherbourne St from King St to Adelaide St 64.94 65.12 64.81 64.65 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

132 Sherbourne St from Queen St to Shuter St 63.24 62.88 63.41 63.33

Sherbourne St from Richmond St to 133 65.10 64.68 65.25 65.29 Queen St

Sherbourne St from Shuter St to Dundas 134 63.03 62.67 63.21 63.03 St

135 Shuter St from Church St to Jarvis St 64.22 64.04 64.40 64.19

136 Shuter St from Jarvis St to Sherbourne St 62.92 62.62 62.69 62.73

Shuter St from Parliament St to Sumach 137 64.17 63.99 64.03 63.97 St

Shuter St from Sherbourne St to 138 62.69 62.45 62.45 62.49 Parliament St

139 Shuter St from Shuter St to River St 64.02 63.98 63.77 63.73

140 Shuter St from Yonge St to Church St 63.07 63.00 63.31 62.97

Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 Traffic Vol < 40 141 Sumach St from King St to Queen St VPH VPH VPH VPH

Traffic Vol < 40 142 Sumach St from Queen St to Shuter St 54.07 53.85 53.54 VPH

143 The Esplanade from Church St to Jarvis St 62.14 62.75 62.56 62.21 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

The Esplanade from Jarvis St to 144 62.14 62.43 62.65 62.16 Sherbourne St

145 The Esplanade from Yonge St to Church St 61.80 62.16 61.72 62.37

146 Trinity St from Front St to Eastern Ave 61.53 60.20 61.73 61.69

147 Villiers St from Cherry St to Don Roadway 56.78 57.47 57.60 57.17

148 Villiers St from Don Roadway to Saulter St 56.78 56.43 56.93 56.79

149 Wellington St from Yonge St to Church St 67.32 67.45 67.28 67.88

150 Yonge St from Front St to King St 66.05 66.03 65.81 66.03

151 Yonge St from Gardiner to The Esplanade 66.79 65.02 67.07 67.17

152 Yonge St from King St to Adelaide St 66.13 66.09 65.86 66.13

153 Yonge St from Queen St to Shuter St 65.64 65.38 65.50 65.60

154 Yonge St from Richmond St to Queen St 65.63 65.37 65.49 65.58

155 Yonge St from Shuter St to Dundas St 65.79 65.42 65.84 65.81 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Representative POR Location Replace Remove Maintain Improve

156 Yonge St from The Esplande to Front St 67.05 65.97 67.54 67.47

R1 Receptor 1 (65 + 84) 70.44 66.57 71.82 71.30

R2 Receptor 2 (65 + 84) 67.18 63.38 68.67 68.02

R3 Receptor 3 (65 + 84) 71.72 67.83 76.35 72.57

R4 Receptor 4 (68 + 87) 69.05 61.50 69.80 69.50

R5 Receptor 5 (68 + 87) 71.16 63.56 75.86 71.61

R6 Receptor 6 (67 + 86) 71.40 66.82 72.49 72.03

R7 Receptor 7 (67 + 86) 67.87 63.36 68.97 68.49

R8 Receptor 8 (67 + 86) 76.71 71.89 76.79 77.33

R9 Receptor 9 (64 + 85) 77.79 68.79 77.54 78.13

R10 Receptor 10 (64 + 82) 68.63 60.22 69.21 68.59

R11 Receptor 11 (64 + 82) 77.98 68.88 78.03 76.72 Predicted Traffic Noise Level (dBA) Replace Remove Maintain Improve

80.00

75.00

70.00

dBA 65.00

60.00

55.00

50.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 Replace 68.32 68.70 69.01 69.01 68.70 66.61 66.72 63.60 61.74 63.05 63.58 61.54 63.39 63.54 64.08 63.40 63.02 61.26 61.86 62.74 61.70 65.15 66.43 65.75 65.97 66.05 66.44 66.16 61.55 62.87 62.68 64.26 63.93 64.47 75.17 74.41 75.42 0.00 67.24 67.20 65.03 67.37 65.07 67.60 64.92 66.57 64.85 65.30 65.64 69.37 69.38 72.64 67.06 72.64 67.04 63.07 67.71 68.15 67.99 68.07 61.73 67.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.46 66.49 67.43 67.73 67.26 64.79 64.62 63.27 64.08 63.28 64.35 64.72 69.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.18 67.46 67.84 65.99 64.19 67.13 64.87 65.30 64.90 0.00 61.07 65.21 65.43 65.48 65.04 65.28 63.88 64.77 63.17 64.48 65.59 64.10 65.65 64.26 65.60 64.48 62.81 64.08 63.66 63.47 64.62 68.09 65.27 69.01 0.00 69.01 68.53 68.71 67.31 58.23 61.79 65.43 64.75 64.94 63.24 65.10 63.03 64.22 62.92 64.17 62.69 64.02 63.07 0.00 54.07 62.14 62.14 61.80 61.53 56.78 56.78 67.32 66.05 66.79 66.13 65.64 65.63 65.79 67.05 70.44 67.18 71.72 69.05 71.16 71.40 67.87 76.71 77.79 68.63 77.98 Remove 68.12 68.59 69.79 69.79 68.57 66.36 65.01 63.26 59.64 63.10 63.46 61.27 61.73 63.52 64.57 63.15 62.19 61.18 61.50 64.13 61.44 64.82 66.26 65.59 65.87 65.88 66.30 65.95 60.88 61.28 61.82 63.53 64.09 64.93 74.52 73.42 74.62 0.00 67.20 67.10 65.93 67.31 65.02 67.51 65.06 66.67 64.84 65.43 65.43 69.65 69.76 71.01 67.21 71.01 66.90 62.74 68.48 68.05 71.01 67.96 62.08 67.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.47 66.74 67.23 67.58 67.10 64.61 64.40 63.55 64.15 63.65 64.27 64.42 71.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.90 67.47 67.55 66.14 62.85 66.99 65.23 62.29 65.11 0.00 60.35 65.06 65.23 64.78 64.88 64.63 63.41 64.25 62.90 64.64 65.59 63.95 65.74 64.16 65.83 64.64 62.89 64.15 63.68 63.65 64.42 67.12 65.18 68.99 0.00 68.80 68.35 68.61 67.19 57.98 61.83 65.37 65.01 65.12 62.88 64.68 62.67 64.04 62.62 63.99 62.45 63.98 63.00 0.00 0.00 62.75 62.43 62.16 60.20 57.47 56.43 67.45 66.03 65.02 66.09 65.38 65.37 65.42 65.97 66.57 63.38 67.83 61.50 63.56 66.82 63.36 71.89 68.79 60.22 68.88 Maintain 68.07 68.54 70.43 70.43 68.72 66.27 65.34 63.17 59.36 62.74 63.36 61.54 63.07 63.76 64.13 63.43 62.49 61.26 61.82 62.46 60.80 65.14 66.23 65.58 65.75 36.96 66.27 66.14 60.69 61.80 61.18 62.77 64.33 65.20 75.67 75.65 76.38 0.00 67.03 66.72 65.87 66.84 64.58 67.43 64.40 66.15 64.28 64.83 65.44 68.73 68.98 70.50 66.86 70.50 66.61 62.77 67.73 68.31 70.50 68.17 62.11 67.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.88 67.23 67.66 68.01 67.42 64.79 64.58 63.37 63.81 62.94 64.62 64.77 70.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.04 67.88 69.23 66.77 62.32 68.03 65.07 60.99 65.02 0.00 61.15 65.28 65.37 65.74 65.16 65.56 63.70 64.95 63.13 63.36 64.83 63.89 64.90 63.91 65.07 63.27 62.12 63.81 63.29 62.77 64.67 67.21 64.52 68.44 0.00 68.97 68.60 68.54 67.20 57.63 61.63 65.37 64.82 64.81 63.41 65.25 63.21 64.40 62.69 64.03 62.45 63.77 63.31 0.00 53.85 62.56 62.65 61.72 61.73 57.60 56.93 67.28 65.81 67.07 65.86 65.50 65.49 65.84 67.54 71.82 68.67 76.35 69.80 75.86 72.49 68.97 76.79 77.54 69.21 78.03 Improve 68.25 68.73 68.88 66.17 68.73 66.40 65.26 63.25 59.48 62.71 63.35 61.45 63.71 63.60 64.31 63.43 62.21 61.26 61.03 62.01 60.40 64.79 66.31 65.76 65.88 66.00 66.32 66.07 61.08 62.79 61.12 62.01 64.05 65.04 75.30 75.04 75.88 0.00 67.01 66.78 65.92 66.91 64.66 67.42 64.51 66.19 64.39 64.89 65.54 68.81 69.00 65.68 66.96 70.57 66.82 62.91 67.65 67.95 67.82 68.07 61.63 67.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.37 66.51 67.31 67.65 67.26 64.87 64.69 62.75 63.22 63.08 64.22 64.74 70.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.07 67.37 67.74 65.97 63.41 67.05 63.29 60.38 64.39 0.00 61.20 65.17 65.32 65.60 65.02 65.78 63.66 64.81 63.11 63.53 64.79 64.12 64.88 64.09 64.86 63.54 62.38 63.22 63.48 62.89 64.76 66.93 64.71 68.44 0.00 69.13 68.67 68.70 67.42 57.72 61.65 65.30 64.64 64.65 63.33 65.29 63.03 64.19 62.73 63.97 62.49 63.73 62.97 0.00 53.54 62.21 62.16 62.37 61.69 57.17 56.79 67.88 66.03 67.17 66.13 65.60 65.58 65.81 67.47 71.30 68.02 72.57 69.50 71.61 72.03 68.49 77.33 78.13 68.59 76.72

Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph of the Study Area and the Selected Receptor Locations

Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix H Economic Assessment Summary

CONFIDENTIAL FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Gardiner Expressway Economic Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives

Assessment of Public Value Creation Updated February 12, 2014 Table of Contents

Introduction

Evaluation of Impacts

Criteria #1: City Competitiveness

Criteria #2: Business Activity

Criteria #3: Public Disposition Proceeds

Conclusion: Summary of Value Creation

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 1 Introduction

HR&A Advisors Scope of Work

Evaluate • Benchmark Toronto’s economy against peer cities worldwide Baseline • Assess the status of Waterfront neighbourhoods and real estate development • Evaluate the impact of Waterfront Toronto’s development program by Conditions calculating: • Permanent jobs created • Public disposition proceeds from land sales

Evaluate • Complete a high-level cost/benefit analysis assessing the impact of improving, Alternative replacing or removing the Gardiner on adjacent Waterfront real estate and the City as a whole based on: Scenarios • Potential to increase City’s economic competitiveness • Enhanced value of existing land

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 3 Toronto’s competitive position

ƒ Toronto is competing increasingly with a set of global cities for talent and investment capital.

ƒ The fourth largest City in North America, Toronto is a key location for many businesses, especially those in the finance and insurance, information and cultural industries, and management sectors. These high-salary industries value being in a dynamic urban environment with quality open spaces, cultural resources and recreational activities.

ƒ The City’s assets include a highly educated workforce, relative affordability, and an internationally recognized creative economy.

ƒ As the economy shifts to favour innovation industries (creative, tech, and the finance and services to support them) that show strong preferences for dynamic urban environments, Toronto must continue to develop new amenities to successfully attract 21st century businesses and workers.

Source: Economic Technical Study, Baseline Conditions

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 4 Study Area

The baseline analysis considered existing and planned conditions in 9 neighbourhoods. The baseline assumes full build out of precinct plans in East Bayfront, Lower Yonge, Keating Channel, Lower Don Lands, and the Port Lands.

Source: Perkins+Will

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 5 Study Area – Property Value Impacts for Alternatives Evaluation

The alternatives analysis only considered property value impacts in Lower Yonge, East Bayfront, and North Keating. The rail berm prevents the distillation of impacts to the north. Neighborhoods to the south and east are too far away to experience property impacts.

Source: Perkins+Will

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 6 Neighbourhoods most impacted by changes to the Gardiner

The potential configurations for the Gardiner Expressway affected the neighbourhoods differently. The following analysis often breaks down the impacts as: ƒ West of Cherry Street (Lower Yonge, East Bayfront, Keating West) ƒ East of Cherry Street (Keating East)

HR&A used the following approach to consider impacts on two key development sites: ƒ 3C – assumes will develop as currently proposed. ƒ First Gulf – HR&A excluded from the quantitative analysis because project is not yet entitled. However, property owners from First Gulf submitted a letter to Waterfront Toronto expressing the following views on each scenario: o Maintain – DVP and GA ramps are in unsuitable locations that constrain development. They do not support this scenario. o Improve – Constrains development unless DVP and GA ramps are reconfigured. They do not support this scenario without reconfigured ramps. o Replace – Concept includes new and better ramp placement that would help site development. They support further investigation of this scenario. o Remove – Concept would facilitate development if enhancements to functionality of local road network can support traffic. Property owners support further investigation of this scenario.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 7 Summary of baseline development plans

Current development plans project 19.3 million square feet of development in the areas impacted by the Gardiner’s potential alteration between 2013 and 2036. The projections below assume the “Do Nothing” case: the Gardiner remains in place and Lake Shore Boulevard moves north to the east of Cherry Street, consistent with the Keating Channel Precinct Plan.

Square Feet Residential Commercial 1 Institutional Total

Lower Yonge 3,131,080 788,070 TBD 3,919,150

East Bayfront 7,400,880 921,110 517,180 8,839,170

Lower Don Lands2

Keating West 3,731,970 510,910 0 4,242,890

Keating East 1,426,830 692,390 201,020 2,320,230 Total 19,321,430

1. Commercial square footage includes office and retail developments. 2. This analysis only considers Keating West and Keating East as impacted by modifications to the Gardiner. Source: Waterfront Toronto, June 2013. Lower Yonge’s development plan taken from the Waterfront Toronto Economic Impact Assessment (Urban Metrics, 2013)

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 8 Baseline jobs

HR&A projects development in these areas could support approximately 10,000 permanent jobs1 over the next 20 years.

Total Commercial Development Total Jobs (SF)

Lower Yonge 779,570 2,420

East Bayfront 1,438,290 3,700

Lower Don Lands

Keating West 510,910 1,470

Keating East 893,400 2,380

Total 3,622,170 9,970

1. Calculations based on employee per square foot calculations used in Urban Metrics Economic Impact Analysis for Waterfront Toronto (2013).

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 9 Baseline public disposition proceeds

HR&A estimates Waterfront Toronto’s baseline development program will generate approximately $254 million (NPV) 1 in disposition proceeds from publicly-owned2 land sales.

Precinct Baseline Value (NPV)

Lower Yonge $30,000,000

East Bayfront $152,000,000

Lower Don Lands

Keating West $35,000,000

Keating East $37,000,000

Total $254,000,000

1. NPV calculated using a discount rate of 6.5%. 2. Public or private land ownership determined by Waterfront Toronto (June 2013)

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 10 Summary of configurations evaluated

Maintain Improve Replace Remove New elevated expressway build in Gardiner remains in place. Modern Gardiner place with some structure is narrower Gardiner is Existing structure Configuration modifications to and is relocated removed. ramps and width. closer to the rail berm through Keating. Lake Shore Boulevard is rebuilt Lake Shore Lake Shore as a wider, eight- Boulevard runs Boulevard has two lane landscaped Lake Shore Consistent with the under the Gardiner fewer lanes and boulevard. Enables Boulevard existing Keating West of Cherry St. runs under the more development Configuration Channel Precinct Consistent with the Gardiner West of in Keating East. Two Plan. Keating Channel Cherry St. Enables sided street Precinct Plan. more development possible between in Keating East. Yonge and Sherbourne.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 11 Criteria for evaluating impact of altering Gardiner

City Competitiveness

‡ Ability to support citywide economic growth

Business Activity

‡ Number of jobs created in the study area

Public Disposition Proceeds

‡ Public disposition proceeds from new development parcels ‡ Public disposition proceeds from enhanced value of development parcels

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 12 Evaluation of Impacts

HR&A Advisors Economic Criteria #1: City’s Economic Competitiveness

HR&A Advisors Survey of North American competitive cities indicates variety of approaches to CBD freeway access.

Citigroup/Economist North American City Competitiveness Ranking CBD Freeway Access ‘ New York 1 Remove ‘ Chicago 9 Never Built Toronto 10 Under Study Washington 14 Maintain Los Angeles 17 Maintain ‘San Francisco 18 Remove Boston 19 Replace (Tunnel) Houston 27 Maintain ‘ Vancouver 28 Never Built Dallas 32 Maintain Atlanta 33 Maintain Seattle 35 Improve/Replace (Tunnel) Montréal 36 Under Study Miami 40 Maintain Philadelphia 48 Improve

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 15 Case study cities have experienced significant population growth since 2000/2001.

Downtown population growth, 2000/2001-2010/2011 60,000 80% 70% 50,000 60% 40,000 50% 30,000 40% 30% 20,000 Population Growth Growth Population 20% 10,000 (%) Growth Population 10% 0 0% Toronto Vancouver Chicago New York Philadelphia San Washington, City Francisco DC Numeric Change % Change US downtowns with the largest increases in population

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 16 Chicago and the Loop

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 17 Comparable to Toronto’s CBD in terms of size and mode split.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 18 No highways directly accessing the Loop.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 19 Lake Shore Drive handles ~130,000 vehicles per day.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 20 Gardiner handles ~130,000 vehicles per day.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 21 The Loop has thrived with existing transportation access.

Population and job growth, 2000 to 2010; Average quarter-over-quarter rent growth, 1996 to 2013 40% 2% 30%

20% 1% 10% 0% Rent Population -1% City of Chicago The Loop Chicago MSA City of Chicago The Loop Office vacancy, 1996 to 2013 20%

15%

10%

5% 1996 2Q 1997 2Q 1998 2Q 1999 2Q 2000 2Q 2001 2Q 2002 2Q 2003 2Q 2004 2Q 2005 2Q 2006 2Q 2007 2Q 2008 2Q 2009 2Q 2010 2Q 2011 2Q 2012 2Q 2013 2Q Loop MSA

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 22 Improving competitiveness of the Loop has been about creating amenities for businesses and their employees.

Signature Public Realm

University Loop Campuses

Walkable Commutes through New Housing

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 23 New York City and the West Side

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 24 Over three decades, New York City transformed its West Side Highway into a surface boulevard.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 25 Growth on the West Side has outpaced the rest of New York City.

Population growth by decade 60% 40% 20% 0% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 -20% MSA City Study Area Average quarter-over-quarter rent growth, 1996-2013; Job growth, 2002-2012; Vacancy, 1996-2013 30% 5% 25% 4% 20% 3% 15% 2% 10% 5% 0% 0%

-1% Rent Jobs QTD

MSA City Study Area 1996 3Q 1997 2Q 1998 1Q 1998 4Q 1999 3Q 2000 2Q 2001 1Q 2001 4Q 2002 3Q 2003 2Q 2004 1Q 2004 4Q 2005 3Q 2006 2Q 2007 1Q 2007 4Q 2008 3Q 2009 2Q 2010 1Q 2010 4Q 2011 3Q 2012 2Q 2013 1Q Study Area MSA

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 26 Pedestrian-friendly boulevard amenitizes recent economic assets.

Destination Entertainment

Signature Mixed-Use Office New Housing Options

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 27 San Francisco and the Embarcadero

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 28 San Francisco transformed the elevated Embarcadero highway into a surface boulevard after a 1989 earthquake.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 29 The districts along the Embarcadero have outpaced the region economically.

Population growth by decade, 1970-2010 20%

10%

0% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 -10% MSA City Study Area

Average quarter-over-quarter rent growth, 2007-2013; Job growth, 2002-2011; Class A office vacancy, 1997-2013

2.0% 25% 20% 1.5% 15% 1.0% 10% 5% 0.5% 0% 0.0%

Rent Jobs 1997 1Q 1997 4Q 1998 3Q 1999 2Q 2000 1Q 2000 4Q 2001 3Q 2002 2Q 2003 1Q 2003 4Q 2004 3Q 2005 2Q 2006 1Q 2006 4Q 2007 3Q 2008 2Q 2009 1Q 2009 4Q 2010 3Q 2011 2Q 2012 1Q 2012 4Q 2013 3Q MSA City Study Area MSA City Study Area

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 30 Recent waterfront economic growth has taken advantage of waterfront adjacency.

Mission Bay Institutional Development

High-Rise Residential Development

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 31 Downtown Vancouver

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 32 The nearest highway is 5 kilometers from downtown Vancouver.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 33 Downtown Vancouver employers rely on transit, a walk-to-work population, and a system of arterials.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 34 Downtown is the region’s premier business district with significant growth underway.

Office space under construction, 2013Q4 Office space, net asking rents, 2013Q4 $35 $30 $25 $20 44% Downtown $15 $10 Rest of $5 Metro $0 Class A Class AAA Downtown Metro Office space, Class AAA and Class A vacancy rates, 2003-2013 20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Metro Downtown

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 35 Driving has decreased over time with the advent of new transit, increasing preference for transit, and growth in downtown population.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 36 Implications for Toronto and its competitiveness

• CBDs are not at risk without through highways.

• A pedestrian environment and a workforce that lives downtown is an important ingredient for competitiveness.

• High capacity boulevards can provide vehicular capacity almost to the level of limited-access highways.

• A system of arterials distributes traffic by providing options.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 37 Economic Criteria #2: Business activity

HR&A Advisors Impact on local economy

REPLACE

REMOVE

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 39 Example: The Embarcadero in San Francisco improves the pedestrian shopping experience on the waterfront and non-waterfront properties.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 40 Retail performance and quality

Maintain Improve Replace Remove

Low to Medium High Low • Light and air • 2-sided Lake Shore segment West of Cherry None • Small scale • Public realm • Light and air open space • Additional • Public realm development • Additional development

High High • Road access East of Cherry None None • Road access • Additional • Additional development development

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 41 Economic Criteria #2: Business activity

Altering the Gardiner may open up new land for real estate development. While most of the development would likely be residential, there is some potential for commercial development that would support job growth in the area.

Maintain Improve Replace Remove

Lower Yonge 0 0 +80 + 730

East Bayfront 0 0 +90 + 420

Keating West* N/A N/A N/A N/A

Keating East 0 0 + 1,580 + 1,610

Total 0 0 + 1,750 +2,760

*Keating West includes private lands for which plans would not likely be impacted by modifications to the Gardiner

Square feet per job based on assumptions in Urban Metrics Economic Impact of Waterfront Toronto (2013). Report assumed 2.5 retail jobs, 3.11 office jobs, 1.74 institutional jobs and 0.1 residential jobs per 1,000 square feet of development..

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 42 Criteria #3: Public Disposition Proceeds

HR&A Advisors Economic Criteria #3: Public disposition proceeds

Altering the Gardiner impacts public disposition proceeds by:

ƒ Opening up new land for real estate development

ƒ Enhancing the value of existing development parcels

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 44 Assessment of Alternatives: Opening up new land for real estate development– West of Cherry (REMOVE)

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 45 Assessment of Alternatives: Opening up new land for real estate development– East of Cherry (REMOVE)

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 46 Assessment of Alternatives: Opening up new land for real estate development

Altering the Gardiner could affect the amount of real estate development in the study area neighbourhoods. Square Feet Maintain Improve Replace Remove

Baseline Development 19,300,000 19,300,000 19,300,000 19,300,000

Additional Development: 0 0 500,000 1,800,000 West of Cherry Street1

Additional Development: 0 0 1,430,000 1,460,000 East of Cherry Street2

Non-quantifiable - Could enhance development of site, First Gulf Site 0 which includes some public property in master plan3 Total 19,300,000 19,300,000 21,200,000 22,600,000

1. Developable square footage based on a FAR of 10 (based on guidance from Perkins + Will). 2. Developable square footage based on a FAR of 6.57 (based on guidance from Waterfront Toronto). 3. Per letter 12/02/13 letter from First Gulf to Waterfront Toronto. The developers do not support maintain. They support further investigation for the other 3 scenarios.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 47 Assessment of Alternatives: Enhanced value for study area property

Maintain Improve Replace Remove Enhanced value assumption 0% 1% 3% 4%

Removing the A new, narrower Gardiner would Gardiner could allow for increased Moving Lake Shore increase air and air and light Boulevard under light for existing throughout the the Gardiner west parcels. Shifting corridor by of Cherry Street Gardiner towards creating a grand could improve the Status quo plans. the rail berm east boulevard, which Rationale public realm, of Cherry St. would will be two-sided providing a slight open up access to between Yonge increase in value the waterfront in and Sherbourne. for existing Keating, enhancing Change would also planned the value of open up waterfront development. existing land. access in Keating, boosting the value of existing land.

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 48 Economic Criteria #3: Public disposition proceeds

$120 Public Disposition Proceeds, 1 NPV in millions $110-$120

Millions Millions $100

$80 $65-$75 $60

$40

$20

$0 $2.2-$2.4 $0 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Nominal$ $0 $3-$4 $150-$160 $240-$260 Enhanced Property Values for Waterfront Real Estate New Land Development Opportunities: East of Cherry (Keating) New Land Development Opportunities: West of Cherry

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 49 Conclusion

HR&A Advisors Conclusion: City’s economic competitiveness and business activity

Maintain Improve Replace Remove Criteria #1: City’s Economic None Low Medium High Competitiveness

Criteria #2: Low Low to Medium Medium High Business Activity

Criteria #3: Public Disposition $0 $2.2-$2.4 $65-$75 $110-$120 Proceeds (NPV)

Overall Impact None Low Medium High

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 51 Conclusion: Public value creation, relative to Maintain

Net Value Creation, NPV in millions $150 $110-$120 $65-$75 $40-$70 Millions Millions $50 $0 ~$2

Maintain Improve Replace Remove -$50 -$20 to -$100

-$150

-$250

-$350

-$290 to -$500 -$450 Total Public Benefits Incremental Cost Savings Relative to "Maintain"

HR&A Advisors CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION | 52 Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Evaluation – INTERIM REPORT - FEBRUARY 2014

Appendix I Capital Cost and Net Present Value Estimate Summary

Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment and Urban Design Study – COST ASSESSMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS – DRAFT FEBRUARY 2014

Capital Cost and Net Present Value Estimates

Table I-1 presents the capital cost and net present value estimate analysis for the alternative solutions.

The estimate of probable costs that was completed for the evaluation of alternative solutions involved the determination of comparative capital and operations and maintenance costs over a 100-year period starting in 2013. This was completed for the Improve, Replace and Remove Alternatives. The estimate for the Maintain Alternative that was used was based on the previous methodology developed by the City in completing the Life Cycle Analysis for their long-term Gardiner Expressway rehabilitation program. The methodology used for the three new alternatives was based on the City’s Gardiner rehabilitation costing methodology.

Capital Cost Estimate Capital costs in the estimates were defined as the major capital expenditures necessary for either new bridge or road construction or for bridge deck replacement. These included cost determination for the following Major Costs Items: 1. Roadworks x Lakeshore Boulevard x Other Roadworks and Intersections 2. Structures x Bridge and Ramp Demolition x Bridge Deck Replacement x Other Bridges (e.g. Transition Areas, River Crossing) x New Ramp Bridges x Bridge Deck Modification x Bent Relocations 3. Utility Relocations 4. Traffic Maintenance During Construction x Major Detours, Temporary Roadworks and Outside corridor works 5. Landscaping and Urban Design x Type 1: Hardscape w/ Planting Area (Urban, street trees in paving, structural soil) x Type 2: Hardscape w/ Planting Areas & Special Amenities (skate park, court sports, 1/3 planting) x Type 3: Hardscape w/ Planting Areas (Paving, Gardens, Street trees, 1/3 Planting) x Type 4: Softscape (Primarily groundcover Planting, trees, Paths, 2/3 planting) x Vegetative green screening of railway retaining wall (non structural) For utility costs an inventory of the buried utilities under the existing Gardiner Expressway was developed and costed for complete removal and relocation. For the alternatives, a percentage of this cost was assigned as follows: Maintain Alternative - included in original estimates by the City: Improve and Remove Alternatives - 15% and; Replace Alternative - 25%. An allowance for traffic maintenance during construction was determined as a percentage of the total Major Cost Items as follows: Improve Alternative - 5%; Replace Alternative - 10% and; Remove Alternative - 10%.

Totals for the Major Cost Items outlined above were developed and the following percentages added to determine the total capital costs for each alternative:

Dillon Consulting Limited, Morrison Hershfield 1 Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment and Urban Design Study – COST ASSESSMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS – DRAFT FEBRUARY 2014

x Miscellaneous items (costs for items not specifically identified but will be required with each alternative - e.g. illumination, drainage etc.) – 18% for Replace and Remove Alternatives only x Engineering and design costs – (7% for Maintain, 10% for Improve, 15% for Replace and Remove) x Contingencies (13% for Maintain, 15% for Improve, 20% for Replace and Remove) x An additional 20% cost range was applied for the total capital, operations and maintenance costs for Improve, Replace and Remove

Due to the advanced development of the Maintain Alternative for which the design was essentially complete, an additional allowance for miscellaneous costs were not considered appropriate and engineering/design/contingency costs were reduced.

Quantities (e.g. deck areas, LSB lanes) for costing were taken from concept plans for each of the alternatives. Unit costs were applied to these quantities to determine the capital cost. The unit costs were estimated based on the following principles: x The major reference for prices was the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)’s Parametric Estimating Guide (PEG), 2011. x For items not directly related to the MTO PEG (e.g. retaining walls, and bridge conversions) the work was quantified and priced according to MTO’s Highway Costing (HiCo) 2013 data base. x Other items that were not covered or not directly related to PEG or HiCo were estimated based on recent, similar project experience and added to the total cost. These include the following: o intersection costs (drainage, curb, pavement marking etc.) o bent relocation (removal of pier column, reconstruction of pier cap, associated; foundation and temporary support); and o landscaping and urban design

Although the majority of unit prices were based on the MTO PEG, price adjustments were made. Prices from recent City of Toronto projects (e.g. bridge removal) were reviewed and some of the unit prices were adjusted to account for complexity of the Gardiner project, the increased durability required to provide for the extended service life of 100 years, use of advanced construction materials and the work in downtown core. Unit prices used in the analysis were corrected to 2013 year values, and are in line with current market prices. Additional adjustments were made as follows; x Available MTO PEG 2011 prices were updated with inflation rate of 5% per year for two year in order to represent 2013 prices. x A complexity factor of 2.0 was applied for bridge items – New Bridge Gardiner, Ramp, and Bridge Conversion. This was to account for the difficult urban city construction environment for bridge work. This factor was not considered applicable to demolition, road, signal, and other structural items.

Life Cycle Costs and Operations and Maintenance Considerations

A life cycle cost analysis was conducted for the alternatives for a 100 year cycle starting in 2013. The City previously had conducted a Life Cycle Analysis for maintaining the Gardiner. A similar approach was applied to Improve, Replace, and Remove options. The capital and remedial treatment cost occurrences were assigned throughout the 100 year time line using year 2013 construction costs without adjustment for inflation. The maintenance methodology followed the City of Toronto’s model proposed for Major and Minor Arterial Roads. A 4% discount rate was applied to convert all costs to

Dillon Consulting Limited, Morrison Hershfield 2 Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment and Urban Design Study – COST ASSESSMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS – DRAFT FEBRUARY 2014

2013 present value and summed together as the total LCCA cost for each individual alternative. The following are the key comments and assumptions related to this analysis: x The majority of the capital costs for new bridge works were started in 2020 and carried out over a period of 4 to 10 years depending on the total cost and project complexity for each alternative followed by designating specific life-cycle repairs over the remaining period up to 100 years x The decks of the ramps follow a similar model once their remaining life-spans expired x Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs include allowances for the following: o Superstructure Repairs (OWP) – overlay, waterproof and pave o Superstructure Repairs (PWP) – patch, waterproof and pave o Bent Repairs o Steel Painting x O&M unit costs were based on ongoing and recent City costs for these types of remediation works x It was assumed that the new decks will have a life span of 100 years, having been replaced with reinforcing materials inert to chlorides such as Stainless Steel and/or Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) in conjunction with high performance concrete, waterproofing membrane and asphalt protection layer. x For the Maintain Alternative, decks of the ramps will complete their 50-year life-spans (the typical rehabilitation cycle of decks reinforced with "black" steel) before entering the 100-year rehabilitation cycle at the time of deck replacement. The existing Jarvis and Sherbourne ramps expire within the next decade and the Logan and DVP ramps within four decades. x The section of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Yonge Street was divided into eight (11) zones based on similar condition, dates of construction or rehabilitation for the existing deck. The capital and O&M costs for these zones were developed for each of the alternatives: o Zone 1: Jarvis Street to Small Street o Zone 7: Gardiner off ramp to DVP o Zone 2: Small Street to Cherry Street o Zone 8: DVP on-ramp to Gardiner o Zone 3: Cherry Street to Don River o Zone 9: Yonge Street to west of Jarvis Street o Zone 4: Gardiner to LSB Ramps at east o Zone 10: West of Jarvis Street to Jarvis Street o Zone 5: Jarvis on-ramp o Zone 0: LSB Bridge over the Don River o Zone 6: Sherbourne off-ramp

Life cycle costs have been summarized in two ways: x All 2013 capital and maintenance costs were assigned over the 2013 – 2113 timeline at the appropriate years and discounted to a 2013 net present worth x The initial phase construction capital costs (essentially in the period of 2020 to 2028) were stripped out of the 100 year timeline and classified as 2013 capital costs and the remaining costs in the 100 year period were discounted to 2013 and added to the 2013 capital costs. The above costing methodology was peer reviewed by an independent consultant and has been adjusted based on comments and suggestions that were received. Property costs are not included in the capital cost estimates

Dillon Consulting Limited, Morrison Hershfield 3 Gardiner East EA 2/12/2013 Lifecycle Cost Estimates Morrison Hershfield/ Dillon/ Waterfront Torotno/ City of Toronto

Capital Cost Estimate (in Millions) Item ID Item Maintain Maintain Improve Replace Remove

City Budget (Jarvis to City Budget (Yonge to Total Accelerated Don River) Jarvis & DVP Ramps)

1 Bridge Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 43.0 2 Ramps Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 9.0 3 Bridge Structure (Jarvis and Sherbourne Ramps) 10.5 0.0 10.5 18.4 11.6 0.0 4 Bridge Structure (Yonge to Jarvis) 0.0 47.6 47.6 37.6 104.3 22.6 5 Bridge Structure (Jarvis to Cherry St) 108.3 0.0 108.3 77.7 159.7 0.0 6 Bridge Structure (Cherry to Don) 58.5 0.0 58.5 40.6 73.0 0.0 7 Bridge Structure (DVP Ramps) 0.0 17.3 17.3 42.5 60.1 40.2 8 Bridge Structure (Logan Ramp) 0.0 15.6 15.6 36.9 37.2 0.0 9 Bent Relocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 10 Don Bridge *Unfunded 0.0 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 11 Lake Shore (Yonge to Cherry) 0.0 2.2 2.2 3.4 27.8 38.0

2013$ 12 Lake Shore (Cherry to Don Rd) *Unfunded 0.0 9.1 9.1 14.3 13.3 13.5 13 Lake Shore (Don Rd to Logan) 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 8.0 6.9 14 Utilities, Don Rd, Intersections, Signals & Misc 0.0 5.0 5.0 13.6 17.0 11.0 15 Traffic Maintenance During Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 55.5 17.8 16 Maintain Acceleration Premium NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 Sub-Total $ 177.3 $ 108.1 $ 285.4 $ - $ 323.9 $ 632.3 $ 212.8 18 Contingencies 13% 23.0 13% 14.1 13% 37.1 13% 0.0 15% 48.6 20% 126.5 20% 42.6 19 Engineering & Design 7% 12.4 7% 7.6 7% 20.0 7% 0.0 10% 32.4 15% 94.8 15% 31.9 20 Misc Costs (Illumination, Drainage, etc) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.8 38.3 21 Total Capital Cost Estimate (2013$) $ 212.7 $ 129.7 $ 342.4 $ - $ 404.8 $ 967.4 $ 325.6 22 Total Capital Cost Estimate (NPV) $ 146.3 $ 50.1 $ 196.4 $ - $ 285.9 $ 641.3 $ 221.0 90% 80% $ 200 $ 120 $ 310 $ 330 $ 780 $ 270 23 Cost Ranges Rounded Up (2013$) 100% 100% $ 220 $ 130 $ 350 $ 410 $ 970 $ 330 110% 120% $ 240 $ 150 $ 380 $ 490 $ 1,170 $ 400 Maintain Others

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (in Millions) Item ID Item Maintain Maintain Improve Replace Remove

City Budget (Jarvis to City Budget (Yonge to Year Total Accelerated Total Don River) Jarvis & DVP Ramps)

2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 2013$ NPV 1 Bridge Structure (Yonge to Jarvis) 0.0 0.0 68.2 5.1 68.2 5.1 67.6 10.0 80.7 8.6 17.5 1.9 2 Bridge Structure (Jarvis and Sherbourne Ramps) 18.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 18.6 2.5 14.5 2.3 9.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 3 Bridge Structure (Jarvis to Cherry St) 182.4 26.6 0.0 0.0 182.4 26.6 130.9 19.6 116.7 12.4 0.0 0.0 4 Bridge Structure (Cherry to DVP Ramps) 98.6 14.4 0.0 0.0 98.6 14.4 70.7 10.6 63.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 5 Bridge Structure (DVP Ramps) 0.0 0.0 41.3 11.6 41.3 11.6 33.4 4.7 47.6 5.0 31.8 3.5 6 Bridge Structure (Logan Ramp) 0.0 0.0 37.2 9.8 37.2 9.8 62.6 8.3 28.7 3.0 0.0 0.0

2013$ 7 Don Bridge 0.0 0.0 8.4 1.0 8.4 1.0 8.4 1.3 8.4 0.9 8.4 0.9 8 Lake Shore (Yonge to Logan) 0.0 0.0 48.1 4.6 48.1 4.6 48.1 5.0 43.8 2.5 60.0 3.6 9 Intersection Signals 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.9 8.3 0.9 8.3 1.1 8.3 0.9 8.3 1.0 10 Interim Repair 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 11 Total Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate (2013$) $ 299.6 $ 220.7 $ 520.3 $ 453.7 $ 415.6 $ 135.2 12 Total Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate (NPV) $ 43.5 $ 42.1 $ 85.6 $ 71.9 $ 50.1 $ 20.0

Lifecyle Cost Estimate (2013$'s in Millions) Item ID Item Maintain Maintain Improve Replace Remove (Accelerated) 1 Capital Cost Estimate 350 410 970 330 2 Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate 530 460 420 140 3 Total Lifecycle Cost Estimate (2013$) $ 880 $ 870 $ 1,390 $ 470 90% 80% $ 800 $ 700 $ 1,120 $ 380 4 Cost Ranges (2013$) 100% 100% $ 880 $ 870 $ 1,390 $ 470 110% 120% $ 970 $ 1,050 $ 1,670 $ 570 Maintain Others Lifecyle Cost Estimate (NPV in Millions) Item ID Item Maintain Maintain Improve Replace Remove (Accelerated) 1 Total Capital Cost Estimate (NPV) 200.0 290.0 650.0 221.0 2 Total Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate (NPV) 90.0 80.0 60.0 20.0 3 Total Lifecycle Cost Estimate (NPV) $ 290.0 $ 370.0 $ 710.0 $ 241.0 90% 80% $ 270 $ 300 $ 570 $ 200 4 Cost Ranges (NPV) 100% 100% $ 290 $ 370 $ 710 $ 250 110% 120% $ 320 $ 450 $ 860 $ 290 Maintain Others

Maintain Maintain Improve Replace Remove Net Cost (NPV in Millions) (Accelerated) 1 Revenue from Public Land Sales (NPV) +/- 10% 026885 2 Lifecycle Cost Estimate (NPV) 290 370 710 250 3 Net Cost (NPV) $ 290 $ 368 $ 643 $ 165

Net Cost (2013$ in Millions) 1 Revenue from Public Land Sales (2013$) +/- 10% 0 3 155 230 2 Lifecycle Cost Estimate (2013$) 880 870 1,390 470 3 Net Cost (2013$ in Millions) $ 880 $ 867 $ 1,235 $ 240